Faisal Kanjrawi by his Tutor Stuart Gray v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2026] NSWSC 1063 — Application To Amend Pleadings — Barrister AI
Faisal Kanjrawi by his Tutor Stuart Gray v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District
CIVIL PROCEDURE — application to amend pleadings — where proposed amendments served on defendant on last day of liability evidence — plaintiff did not act with expedition — proposed amended pleadings involving significant recasting of scope and content of duty of care owed by defendant and new case against individuals who were defendant witnesses and who had already ceased giving evidence — ss 56, 58 and 64 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) — interaction between common law principles governing amendment of pleadings and Civil Procedure Act
Quick Take
1A court may refuse leave to amend pleadings under s 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) where the amendments involve a significant recasting of the duty of care and new cases against named individuals, sought after those individuals have completed their evidence, because of the procedural unfairness and prejudice to the defendant who conducted its case on the basis of the pleading as filed.
2It is a sufficient basis for refusing leave to amend that the opposing party may have conducted its case differently had the new matters been in issue, or has been deprived of an opportunity to adduce evidence on the relevant issues — particularly where the applicant did not act with expedition and the amendments could have been raised before the hearing commenced.
3The common law principle that pleadings should be amended to reflect the real questions in dispute (Dare v Pulham) is subject to the overriding purpose in s 56 and the dictates of justice in s 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and does not compel amendment where the case was not conducted on issues beyond those pleaded.
