Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 7)

The case of Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 7) involved the applicants seeking to amend their pleadings in a complex dispute. The applicants were engaged in litigation against AECOM Australia Pty Ltd and several cross-respondents. The dispute centred around allegations of professional negligence and breach of contract, among other claims, arising from the applicants' engagement of AECOM for consulting services. The applicants sought to amend their statement of claim to include additional particulars and claims, while AECOM opposed the application on various grounds, including the inconsistency of the applicants' factual allegations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a party could plead inconsistent factual allegations in the alternative and whether the proposed amendments to the pleadings were tenable. AECOM argued that the applicants' proposed amendments were based on two sets of inconsistent facts and that the alternative case as pleaded and particularised was not tenable. The court had to determine whether the applicants' proposed amendments met the legal standards for amendments and whether the inconsistencies in the factual allegations were permissible.

The court found that the applicants could plead inconsistent factual allegations in the alternative, but only if the alternative case as pleaded and particularised was tenable. The court held that the applicants' proposed amendments were not tenable because they were based on two sets of inconsistent facts. The court disallowed the application for leave to amend in part, ordering the applicants to serve a revised version of their proposed amended defence and cross-claims. The court also made several orders regarding particulars and supplementary witness statements, reserving questions of costs for later consideration.

The court's orders included a requirement for the applicants to serve a revised version of their proposed amended defence and cross-claims by a specified date, with certain allegations excluded. The court also ordered that any party who contended that the revised amended defence did not comply with the court's requirements was to notify all other parties and the Associate to Nicholas J of that fact by a specified date. Additionally, the court ordered AECOM to provide particulars of certain conversations and events and the cross-respondents to file and serve supplementary witness statements by specified dates. Finally, the court reserved questions of costs relating to AECOM’s amendments for consideration at the next directions hearing.