Hutton v Meston

[2004] WASCA 178

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Amendment of pleadings
4. › Withdrawal of admission
5. › Principles governing exercise of discretion
6. › Whether discretion fettered by requirement to show inadvertence or mistake
7. › Whether overriding principle is attainment of justice
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 21 r 5
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Admissions
4. › Admission of liability by insurer
5. › Considered commercial judgment to admit liability against legal advice
6. › Whether prejudice to party seeking amendment
7. › Whether balance of justice favours withdrawal

Quick Take

The Celestino test (requiring demonstration of error or mistake, sensible explanation, and no injustice) and the Jacob and Goldrein test (requiring inadvertence or new facts) do not represent the correct approach to applications to withdraw admissions in Western Australia. The overriding principle is the attainment of justice as stated in JL Holdings. However, the nature and importance of the admission, the time it has stood, and the circumstances in which it was made (including whether it was a considered commercial judgment) are relevant considerations in the balance of justice. The English approach in Gale v Super Drugstores was not accepted as representing Australian law.