Plaintiff A v Bird, Plaintiff B v Bird, Plaintiff v Bird, Plaintiff D v Bird

The plaintiffs, A, B, C, and D, filed separate claims against Bird. The disputes involved allegations of breaches of contract, deceit, and misrepresentation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their statements of claim shortly before the final hearing. The plaintiffs sought to introduce new allegations and supporting evidence, including hearsay statements, which they argued fell under the exceptions in section 63 of the Evidence Act. The court needed to determine if these amendments should be allowed under the circumstances and if the plaintiffs should be granted leave to serve the new evidence at such a late stage.

The court examined the principles guiding amendments to pleadings, particularly in light of the imminent final hearing. It considered the balance between the need for procedural fairness and the importance of finality and efficiency in litigation. The court also scrutinised the exceptions to the hearsay rule, particularly section 63, to determine if the new evidence could be admitted. The court concluded that while the plaintiffs had a right to amend their pleadings, the timing and the lack of justification for the delay made it inappropriate to allow the amendments. The court further held that the hearsay statements were not admissible under section 63 because they did not meet the requirements of the exception.

In summary, the court denied the plaintiffs' applications to amend their statements of claim and to serve new evidence at such a late stage. The court's decision was based on the unfairness to the defendant and the potential disruption to the trial process. As a result, the plaintiffs' attempts to introduce new allegations and evidence were unsuccessful. The final orders of the court upheld the initial pleadings and barred the introduction of the new evidence.