HK Developments Pty ltd v Doeuk

HK Developments Pty Ltd sought leave to amend its Response to Counter-Application and to adduce further evidence in a building dispute heard by the court. The applicant had initially appeared unrepresented, but obtained legal representation during the proceedings. The legal issues before the court were the applicant's ability to amend its Response to the Counter-Application and adduce further evidence after receiving legal advice. The court found that the limits on the ability of a party to change pleadings and case were applicable, and refused the applicant's application to amend its Response and to adduce further evidence. However, the court granted leave for the applicant to file the Statement of Blair Ripley. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient reason to justify an amendment to its Response or the admission of further evidence. While the applicant had obtained legal representation partway through the hearing, this did not entitle it to make changes to its case.

The court emphasised that parties must be cautious in the preparation of their cases and that the court would not allow changes to pleadings and evidence unless there was a good reason to do so. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any compelling reason for the amendment of its Response or the admission of further evidence. The applicant's attempt to rely on the fact that it had obtained legal representation partway through the hearing was not sufficient to justify the changes it sought to make. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an amendment to its Response or the admission of further evidence. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful preparation of cases and the limits on the ability of parties to change their pleadings and evidence once proceedings have commenced.