Ghougassian v Sutherland

In *Ghougassian v Sutherland*, the appellants, who were mortgagors, appealed a decision of the primary judge who had refused to allow the mortgagees to amend their claim for compound interest during an account of mortgage debts. The dispute arose after the primary judge had already delivered reasons for judgment, with the mortgagees seeking to introduce a claim for compound interest that had not been included in their earlier statements of account.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in exercising their discretion to refuse the mortgagees' late application to amend their claim to include compound interest. This involved considering whether the statements of account and notice of error, delivered pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 46.5, should be treated as equivalent to pleadings and whether the mortgagors would be prejudiced by the late amendment.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had not erred in formulating the relevant question as one of amendment or in the exercise of discretion. The court reasoned that the statement of account and notice of error effectively defined the issues in dispute, akin to pleadings. Allowing the amendment at such a late stage, after reasons for judgment had been delivered, would have prejudiced the mortgagors, who had prepared their case based on the accounts provided. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.