Major v Woodside Energy Ltd [No 4] - [2009] WASC 248

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: MAJOR -v- WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD [No 4] [2009] WASC 248

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 29 JUNE 2009

DELIVERED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 1186 of 2007

BETWEEN: STEVEN MAJOR
Plaintiff
AND
WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to disallow amendments to the defence - Matters relevant to exercise of discretion whether to allow amendments to defence - Whether plaintiff will be prejudiced by the amendments

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr B Goldsmith
Defendant: Mr T D Blackburn SC & Ms J Di Lena

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Goldsmiths Lawyers
Defendant: Edwards Wallace

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394

LE MIERE J:

Introduction

The plaintiff applies to disallow the defendant's amended defence dated and filed on 12 May 2009.
The action was commenced on 23 February 2007. On 8 March 2007 the plaintiff filed and served his statement of claim. On 18 April 2007 the defendant filed and served its defence. On 8 August 2007 the plaintiff filed and served his reply.
On 18 September 2008 Newnes J ordered that the plaintiff enter the action for trial on or after 26 September 2008. On 2 October 2008 the plaintiff filed an entry for trial.
Between November 2008 and April 2009 there was correspondence between the solicitors for the parties in relation to the estimated length of trial and further and better particulars of the plaintiff's claim.
On 12 May 2009 the defendant filed its amended defence. The amended defence was filed pursuant to orders made by Newnes J on 25 September 2008 when his Honour ordered that unless 'otherwise ordered, any party may without leave amend any pleading at any time prior to the date seven weeks before the day fixed for the commencement of the trial by filing and serving the amended pleading' [27]. His Honour also ordered that within seven days after the service on a party of a pleading so amended, that party may apply to disallow the amendments [3].
The plaintiff did not apply to disallow the amendment within seven days on service of him of the amended pleading. However, the plaintiff has explained the delay in applying to disallow the amendment and I am satisfied that it is proper to deal with the plaintiff's application on its merits.

Statement of claim

This action concerns three emails published by employees of the defendant in the course of their employment which the plaintiff alleges are defamatory of him. The plaintiff pleads that each of the emails give rise to imputations defamatory of him and which relate to his attitude and work performance. The first, second and third emails were sent by the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of Operations and the Engineering Services Manager of the defendant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Major v Woodside Energy Ltd [No 4] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] WASC 248
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Major v Woodside Energy Ltd [No 4] involves the plaintiff, Major, seeking an injunction against the defendant, Woodside Energy Ltd, regarding amendments to the defence. The dispute centres on whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced by the proposed amendments to the defence. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the amendments to the defence were not only unnecessary but would also prejudice their ability to adequately prepare for the trial. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff would be unfairly disadvantaged by the proposed amendments.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the amendments to the defence were allowed. This involved assessing the timing of the application, the nature of the amendments, and the extent to which the plaintiff could adjust their case in response to the changes. The court considered whether the plaintiff had sufficient time and opportunity to review and respond to the amended defence, and if the amendments significantly altered the substantive case of the defendant. The court's decision hinged on a careful balance between the need for procedural fairness and the overarching objective of resolving disputes efficiently.

In reaching its decision, the court closely examined the facts of the case and the arguments presented by both parties. It found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for claiming prejudice, as they had ample time to review the proposed amendments and prepare a response. The court also considered the public interest in finality and the efficient resolution of disputes. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments to the defence, concluding that the plaintiff had not shown that they would be unfairly disadvantaged by the changes. This decision reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted fairly while also promoting the timely resolution of disputes.

Orders