Reliance Capital Pty Ltd v Caratti [No 6]

In Reliance Capital Pty Ltd v Caratti [No 6], the applicants, Reliance Capital, sought leave to amend their pleadings during the trial, specifically in relation to two separate cases, CIV 3136 and CIV 2283. The disputes concerned various amendments proposed by the applicants, including changes to their defence and counterclaims. The court had to decide whether these amendments were reasonably arguable and whether they should be refused on case management grounds, following the principles established in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University.

The court examined each proposed amendment in detail, assessing its arguability and its impact on the case's management. In CIV 3136, the court allowed some amendments that were considered reasonably arguable, but refused others that were deemed less plausible or potentially disruptive. The court also considered the timing of the applications, which were made on the third day of the trial, and determined that this did not automatically warrant refusal. In CIV 2283, the court allowed an amendment to the counterclaim while refusing the amendment related to the effect of a garnishee notice. The court concluded that the decision on whether to permit amendments was highly fact-specific, and thus each case had to be assessed individually.

The court ultimately denied leave for certain amendments in both cases, while permitting others that were considered reasonably arguable. The decisions turned on the specific circumstances of each case, particularly the arguability of the amendments and the potential impact on the trial's management. The court's reasoning was guided by the principles established in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University, ensuring that the amendments were considered on a case-by-case basis. The final orders reflected the court's determinations, allowing some amendments while refusing others.