Helou v M and J Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd (No 5)

The case involved a dispute between Helou and M and J Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a Notice to Admit Facts and Documents served by M and J Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd on Helou, to which Helou did not respond. M and J Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd subsequently sought to withdraw the admissions contained in the Notice to Admit Facts and Documents. The legal issues before the court were whether the party serving the notice had changed its position in reliance on the admissions and whether leave should be granted to withdraw the admissions and to file an Amended Statement of Cross-Claim. The court found that the party serving the notice had not changed its position in reliance on the admissions and granted leave to withdraw the admissions and to file the Amended Statement of Cross-Claim. The court also considered the costs associated with the application and found that the successful party should pay a proportion of the unsuccessful party’s costs.

The court found that the party serving the notice did not change its position in reliance on the admissions and that the party did not seek to withdraw the admissions until after the expiry of the time for the other party to respond. The court also found that the party seeking to withdraw the admissions had not acted unreasonably in failing to respond to the Notice to Admit Facts and Documents and that the party had a reasonable excuse for the delay. The court held that the party serving the notice had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay and that the party had not acted in bad faith. The court also found that the party seeking to withdraw the admissions had not acted unreasonably in failing to respond to the Notice to Admit Facts and Documents and that the party had a reasonable excuse for the delay. The court held that the party seeking to withdraw the admissions had not acted in bad faith and that the party had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay.

The court granted leave to withdraw the admissions and to file the Amended Statement of Cross-Claim. The court held that the extent of the amendments was not restricted by an earlier decision of the court and that the party seeking to withdraw the admissions had not acted unreasonably in failing to respond to the Notice to Admit Facts and Documents. The court also held that the party seeking to withdraw the admissions had not acted in bad faith and that the party had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay. The court found that the successful party should pay a proportion of the unsuccessful party’s costs. The court held that the successful party had not acted unreasonably in seeking to withdraw the admissions and that the successful party had not acted in bad faith. The court also held that the successful party had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay. The court ordered that the successful party pay a proportion of the unsuccessful party’s costs.