Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Amendment of Defence)

The first group of proposed changes concerned paragraphs 43A and 43B of the further amended statement of claim. Hubexo had altered the pleaded dates in those paragraphs in September 2025. The respondents had amended their defence in October 2025 but had not then made substantive changes to the relevant date allegations. They now wanted to withdraw admissions and plead different dates, including an allegation that a process commenced on about 16 May 2018 rather than on the earlier dates pleaded by Hubexo.

Although the conduct of RP Data remained admitted, the timing was disputed.

Hubexo objected on several grounds. It said there was no adequate explanation for the delay, the amendment was very late, and the dates were important enough that it would have sought further discovery and put on evidence in reply if the denials had been pleaded earlier. The respondents said the issue arose from oversight and argued that the evidence had already been filed, so there was no real room for additional evidence from Hubexo.

The second group of amendments involved what the respondents called new defences or clarifications. These relied on contracts between Hubexo and three so-called dummy subscribers. The respondents pointed to a limitation of liability clause in some or all of those contracts. The clause was said to limit each party's aggregate liability, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, arising out of or related to the agreement, to subscription fees paid in the relevant year.

The respondents wanted to argue, as a point of law, that this clause also limited their own liability to Hubexo on the tortious inducement claim.

The respondents said the point was important because, if successful, it could reduce Hubexo's damages on that part of the case to less than $100,000. Hubexo responded that the argument was legally complex and had not been properly raised before. It said that if the point had been pleaded earlier, it may have led to different evidence, further factual allegations, a different damages case, and possible joinder of the subscribers or their directors.

The judgment notes that some related parties had been named as prospective respondents in earlier preliminary discovery proceedings, and that an earlier application to join additional respondents had been refused by Yates J in 2022.

The final category concerned paragraphs 71 and 78 and an assignment deed between Hubexo and BCI Asia Philippines, Inc. The existing defence had contained a non-admission about the assignment of copyright from BCI Asia to Hubexo. The proposed amendment went further. It challenged the validity of the assignment, alleged that any infringement occurred before 8 May 2020, and contended that any loss was suffered by BCI Asia rather than Hubexo.

The respondents also argued that the applicant had not pleaded that any infringement occurred in Australia.

Hubexo said these were not harmless legal refinements. It argued that the new points would have changed the way the copyright claim was prepared, including further discovery and possible joinder of BCI Asia as a joint applicant. The court also noted that the respondents had served a notice disputing the truth or authenticity of the confirmatory IP deed under the Federal Court Rules, although senior counsel confirmed this was not an allegation of fraud or sham.

The reasons show several practical themes. First, a party seeking a late amendment needs a convincing explanation for why the point was not raised earlier. Here, the withdrawal of admissions was said to arise from an oversight, and the new defences were said to have emerged during preparation for trial. The court considered that explanation inadequate in the circumstances.

Second, the court looked beyond labels. Calling a point a clarification or a legal issue did not solve the problem if the amendment would materially change how the other side needed to prepare the case. The proposed amendments here could affect discovery, reply evidence, damages, and whether additional parties should be joined.

Third, the court focused on prejudice in a practical sense. Prejudice was not limited to whether Hubexo could theoretically argue back. The real question was whether Hubexo had lost the opportunity to prepare the case properly on the footing of the new issues. The judge accepted evidence that it had. Fourth, the court considered the hearing timetable itself.

If allowing the amendments would require some or all of the hearing to be vacated, that was a serious case-management consequence that a costs order might not cure.

The judgment also reflects a broader expectation that parties and their lawyers must co-operate to express the issues for trial with clarity, precision and openness. In a long-running commercial case, the court expects that process to happen before the hearing starts, not once witnesses and submissions are already underway.

The judge accepted that the different preparation Hubexo would be entitled to undertake if the amendments were allowed would be significant. The only realistic way for Hubexo to meet the amendments would be for some part of the first tranche of the hearing, or possibly all of it, to be vacated. That impact was considered serious and unlikely to be adequately ameliorated by a costs order.

The court also made an important observation about trial preparation. Needham J accepted that preparation close to trial can sharpen parties' thinking, but said that this focus could, and should, have occurred much earlier. That comment is central to how businesses should read the case. The refusal was driven by timing, prejudice and case management, not by a final determination that the proposed arguments were legally hopeless.

There is also a governance point for business owners and in-house teams. Litigation risk often sits across legal, sales, operations, finance and IT. A limitation clause may sit in customer terms. An assignment issue may sit in an old corporate transaction file. A date dispute may depend on internal project records or emails. If those materials are not reviewed together early, a business may discover an important point too late to use it effectively.

The case also shows that calling something a pure point of law may not avoid the problem. If the point would have changed the evidence, the pleadings, the damages case or the parties to the proceeding, the court may still treat it as a substantial amendment with real prejudice consequences.

If a genuinely new issue emerges close to trial, move quickly and explain it properly. The court will want to know why the point was not raised earlier, what evidence supports it, what extra steps the other side would need, and whether the hearing timetable can still be preserved. Delay, vagueness and underestimating prejudice can be fatal to the application.

For businesses managing disputes, the safest reading of this case is simple: settle your factual position early, pressure-test your contracts and corporate documents before trial, and do not assume the court will let you reshape the case at the courtroom door.