Ruling says proposed changes are central to dispute, do not significantly expand case
While recognising the relatively even balance of the relevant factors, Queensland’s Supreme Court granted a fresh application to amend a statement of claim upon determining that it should exercise its discretion to permit the plaintiff to make the proposed changes.
In Junjie Ou v Xuefei Wang [No 2] [2025] QSC 306, after junior counsel had settled the pleading, the plaintiff applied to amend his statement of claim at a relatively late stage and sought to add paragraph 11A. The plaintiff alleged that newly retained senior counsel had suggested the changes.
On 12 March 2025, the Supreme Court denied the application and declined to add paragraph 11A due to the paragraph’s imprecision and the particulars’ open-ended nature.
The plaintiff filed a fresh application to amend, again based on new counsel’s recommended amendments. The plaintiff wanted to add paragraphs 12A and 12B, which included a chain of WeChat messages, translated from Mandarin and giving rise to certain assurances.
The plaintiff alleged that the assurances convinced him to sign a deed of gift purporting to give property to the defendant’s company. The plaintiff added that the assurances were representations serving as the basis for his estoppel claim.
The plaintiff also proposed to add the relatively minor paragraphs 16A and 24A, as well as a conventional estoppel claim to the equitable promissory estoppel claim. These changes were not supposed to expand the case.
The defendant countered that:
The Supreme Court of Queensland allowed the proposed amendments to the statement of claim upon discussing the following relevant factors.
First, the court acknowledged that it would have to resolve issues regarding the translation. Similarly to the prior application, the proposed amendment came late – after the parties had closed the pleadings, completed disclosure, and filed and served the evidence-in-chief. The court noted that it simply needed to allocate trial dates.
Second, like last time, the court pointed out that the plaintiff’s only explanation for the late proposed amendments was that his new counsel had claimed the changes were desirable. The court added that this was the plaintiff’s second attempt to redraft the pleading.
Third, the Supreme Court determined that these proposed amendments would not significantly expand the case, given that the parties’ WeChat messages were central to the dispute.
Fourth, the court accepted that the defendant would need to expend effort to alter her defence. However, the court found that any prejudice and inconvenience to her would likely be insignificant because the proceedings had already properly engaged substantive issues.
Fifth, the court acknowledged that the defendant correctly asserted that the plaintiff’s proposed amendments had delayed and disrupted the litigation. However, the court stressed the importance of providing both parties the opportunity to proceed with their cases as they deemed fit.
Ultimately, the court accepted the relatively even balance of the factors. However, the court concluded that it should exercise its discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend his claim and offer the defendant a fair chance to respond.
