Hirshman v Dixon-Smith (No 2)

The case involved Hirshman as the plaintiff and Dixon-Smith as the defendants. The dispute centred on the discovery process, the necessity of amending the statement of claim, and the associated costs. The court was required to decide on the scope of discovery and whether the plaintiff's application to amend the pleadings should proceed. The court heard an application for discovery post the commencement of the suit, with the plaintiff seeking to determine if and how the statement of claim should be amended. The defendants did not oppose some categories of discovery, required variation for others, and opposed some categories outright. The court ordered discovery for certain categories, varied others, and rejected some categories. The plaintiff subsequently applied for leave to file an amended pleading. The court stood over the notice of motion to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to draft a further amendment after the defendants provided their discovery. The court also addressed the issue of costs, noting that the plaintiff had twice unsuccessfully attempted to amend the pleadings without previously seeking discovery. The court found that many flaws in the plaintiff's draft pleadings were not attributable to the absence of discovery by the defendants, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs associated with the previous unsuccessful pleading amendment applications.