The defendants brought a motion to amend their pleadings by delivering a Fresh As Amended Statement of Defence and Crossclaim.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants had made admissions in the proceeding and that Rule 51.05 governing withdrawal of admissions applied.
The court found that while the defendants had made certain admissions regarding the promissory note and advances of funds, the proposed amendments did not seek to resile from those core admissions.
Rather, the defendants sought to plead alternative circumstances regarding the nature of the transaction, including rectification, set-off, and damages claims.
The court granted leave to amend, except for the non est factum defence, which was precluded by the defendants' prior admissions regarding the promissory note.
