Briggs v Curtis Quick & Associates

[1999] WASCA 139

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Statement of claim
4. › Amendments
5. › Whether amendments should be allowed
6. › Whether proposed particulars were embarrassing or inconsistent with the plea they purported to particularise
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Statement of claim
4. › Prohibition on pleading evidence
5. › Whether proposed amendments constituted pleas of mere evidence
6. › Supreme Court Rules O 20 r 8(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Statement of claim
4. › Amendments
5. › Consistency with particulars already delivered
6. › Whether amendment inconsistent with delivered particulars should be allowed

Quick Take

Particulars that introduce new material inconsistent with the plea they purport to particularise are embarrassing and will be struck out. A plea of conduct from which a fact might be inferred is a plea of evidence, not a permissible particular. An amendment to a pleading that is inconsistent with particulars already delivered will not be allowed unless the particulars are withdrawn or amended.