Mestanza v Sandland

In *Mestanza v Sandland*, the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to determine whether a party who had been granted leave to amend their pleadings had, in fact, done so in compliance with the court's order. The dispute arose from an application to strike out a defence, with the applicant arguing that the respondent had failed to properly amend their pleadings as directed by a previous court order.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's amended defence constituted a proper compliance with the order granting leave to amend. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the amendments made were sufficient to cure the defects identified in the original defence and whether they met the requirements of the rules of pleading.

Driver J found that the respondent had not complied with the order granting leave to amend. The Court reasoned that the amendments made were superficial and did not address the substantive deficiencies in the original defence. The principles of pleading require that defences be clear, concise, and raise material facts that, if proved, would constitute a defence to the claim. The amended defence, in this instance, failed to meet these fundamental requirements, leading the Court to conclude that the respondent had not properly amended their pleadings as ordered. Consequently, the Court ordered that the defence be struck out.