The Court granted leave to file a second further amended statement of claim, holding that the proposed amendments refined the existing misleading or deceptive conduct case rather than introducing a new cause of action. In the alternative, the Court held that even if the amendments did introduce a new cause of action, it arose out of substantially the same facts as the earlier pleaded claims, satisfying r 503(4) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). The defendants who opposed the amendment without substance were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application from the date it was filed, while the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.