The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as Buildcorp Interiors (leave to amend)

In the case of The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as Buildcorp Interiors, the plaintiff, The Star, sought leave to amend its defence and cross-claims during the first day of a scheduled 10-day trial. The Star, a casino operator, was pursuing $4 million in damages from Buildcorp, the builder, for using combustible and non-compliant aluminium composite panels (ACPs) in the construction of its casino. Buildcorp, in turn, had cross-claimed against the architect and the façade installer’s insurer. The Star sought to amend its pleadings to align them with the evidence exchanged and to narrow the issues in dispute. The court had to decide whether these amendments were permissible and whether they would align the pleadings with the evidence and narrow the issues in dispute.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the proposed amendments were consistent with previous pleadings and whether they adhered to the principles outlined in rule 14.18 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The Star argued that the amendments were necessary to correct errors and to ensure that the pleadings reflected the evidence that had been exchanged. Buildcorp, on the other hand, opposed the amendments, arguing that they were inconsistent with previous pleadings and would lead to an unfair surprise.

The court held that the proposed amendments were not consistent with the previous pleadings, and that the amendments sought to introduce new causes of action and to alter the pleadings in a way that was not permissible under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasised that while rule 14.18 is subservient to the overriding case management principles, it is still important to ensure that the pleadings are consistent with previous pleadings and that the amendments correct errors and determine the real issues in dispute. The court found that the amendments sought to introduce new causes of action and to alter the pleadings in a way that was not permissible under the rules. The court denied The Star leave to amend its pleadings.

In light of the above, the court dismissed The Star’s application for leave to amend its pleadings. The trial proceeded as scheduled, with the original pleadings remaining in effect.