Scholle Industries Pty Ltd v AEP Industries (NZ) Ltd

In the case of Scholle Industries Pty Ltd v AEP Industries (NZ) Ltd, the defendants, AEP and DS Smith, sought permission to amend their defences to include a claim that Scholle's liability to a non-party was limited by the amount Scholle paid to its insurers to secure the release of the insurers' subrogated rights. The defendants also sought an order for Scholle to disclose an agreement between Scholle and its insurers regarding the release of the insurers' subrogated rights. The application was made in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The key legal issues were whether the defences proposed by the defendants were reasonably arguable and whether the apprehended agreement was directly relevant to any issue on the pleadings.

The court found that the proposed defences were not reasonably arguable. The court noted that the defendants had not provided any evidence to support their belief that an agreement existed between Scholle and its insurers. The court also found that the apprehended agreement was not directly relevant to any issue on the pleadings. The court held that the defendants had not established that the agreement, if it existed, was directly relevant to any issue raised on the pleadings. The court therefore dismissed the application for further discovery.

In conclusion, the court refused the defendants' applications for leave to amend their defences and to discover any agreement made between Scholle and its insurers regarding the release of the insurers' subrogated rights. The court held that the defendants had not established that the apprehended agreement, if it existed, was directly relevant to any issue on the pleadings. The court will hear the parties as to costs.