Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWSC 1423

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1423
Hearing dates: 14 October 2022
Date of orders: 14 October 2022
Decision date: 14 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [16]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Amendment — Late application for amendment — No explanation for lateness — No prejudice — Amendment allowed

Legislation Cited:
Not applicable

Cases Cited:
Not applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: William Farmer (P)
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (D1)
Wilson Security Pty Ltd (D2)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Cranitch SC (P)
D Priestley SC (D1)
W Reynolds (D2)
Solicitors:
Somerville Laundry Lomax (P)
Gilchrist Connell (D1)
JLN Corporate Services Pty Ltd (D2)

File Number(s): 2018/175460
Publication restriction: Not applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment

This is an application by the plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim by the addition of a further particular of negligence in the following form: "Failing to provide adequate lighting at or near the staircase." That particular of negligence is said to be relevant to the claims made against both the first defendant and the second defendant.
Proceedings were commenced against the first defendant in June 2018 and against the second defendant on 29 June 2022. No doubt each of them, however, had notice of the plaintiff's accident when he fell down some stairs in his accommodation block at Nauru either at the time it happened or in a very short time thereafter.

Submissions of the Plaintiff

The application to amend the Statement of Claim was brought on the first or second day of the hearing of these proceedings, some notice having been given to the defendants shortly prior to it being brought. The application to amend the Statement of Claim is not accompanied by any explanation as to the reason why it is brought so late in the proceeding, and the plaintiff's Senior Counsel does not proffer any explanation at all from the bar table.
He submits that an existing particular of negligence in the following terms, "Failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe workplace" would cover the adequacy or inadequacy of the lighting at or near the staircase from which the plaintiff fell, but submits that for more abundant caution, the plaintiff ought plead specifically a failure to provide adequate lighting.
Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that in the interest of justice, in the circumstances which are described later, his client ought be permitted to amend the case even in the absence of any explanation for it arising so late in the proceedings. He submits that, having regard to the fact that evidence has been given by the relevant lay witnesses and by two experts whose evidence might otherwise touch on the lighting, there is no prejudice that can be identified to the defendants.

Submissions of the Defendants

The first defendant, Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd, accepts that it cannot point to any specific identifiable prejudice but submits that, nevertheless, in the absence of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 1423
Decision Date: 14 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd was before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Farmer, brought an action against Broadspectrum, a company, for alleged breaches of contract and other related claims. The matter involved complex contractual obligations and the parties' respective duties and responsibilities under the agreement. Farmer sought to amend the pleadings after the respondent had filed a defence to include additional claims and particulars, arguing that these were necessary to fully address the respondent's conduct and to clarify the issues in dispute.

The court had to determine whether Farmer's late application for amendment should be allowed. The issues included whether the application was made in a timely manner, whether there was any justification for the delay, and whether the amendment would cause any prejudice to Broadspectrum. Additionally, the court needed to consider the overall fairness and efficiency of the proceedings in light of the proposed amendments.

The court held that the application for amendment was not made unreasonably late, given that Farmer had no previous opportunity to include the additional claims and particulars. Furthermore, Broadspectrum did not demonstrate any prejudice from the late amendment, and the court found that allowing the amendment would not unfairly disadvantage the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of amendments that clarify the issues in dispute and promote the just resolution of the case. Accordingly, the court allowed the application for amendment, enabling Farmer to include the additional claims and particulars in the pleadings. The court's decision recognised the need to balance the rights of the parties with the overarching goal of achieving a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute.

Orders