Wright Prospecting Pty Limited v Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited (3)

Wright Prospecting Pty Limited sought leave to amend its reply in a dispute with Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The proposed amendment sought to raise matters of law in response to a limitation defence, specifically whether the claim was made against the defendant as a trustee or in relation to any trust, whether it was founded on fraud or fraudulent breach of trust, and whether the limitation period did not run against the plaintiff because they had no interest in the property in possession.

The court considered whether the proposed pleading was necessary and whether the delay in seeking leave to amend was justified. The court noted that while matters of law could generally be pleaded without leave, specific pleading was required for fraud to make a defence not maintainable. The plaintiff had originally been granted leave to amend its reply but failed to do so within the specified timeframe. The court found that the plaintiff's explanation for the delay, that the necessity for specific reply was not immediately apparent, did not adequately justify the delay, particularly given the impact on the defendant's preparation and potential cross-examination of witnesses.

The court ultimately denied leave to amend the reply, reasoning that the proposed pleading was unnecessary as it sought to raise matters of law, and the delay in seeking leave was not sufficiently justified. The court emphasised the importance of timely pleading and the potential prejudice caused by delays, especially when the trial had already progressed significantly.

The court made no orders for the amendment of the reply, maintaining the existing pleadings as they stood.