In Yufeng v Guo [2026] NSWCA 3, the Court of Appeal delivered an important judgment about admissions, and the requirements applicable to withdrawing admissions. This clarifies the position under UCPR 12.6, which had been the subject of differing trial court rulings.

At [41], Kirk JA (Bell CJ and Adamson J agreeing) held that an admission is statement which is responsive to something – so generally, allegations in a statement of claim will not be ‘admissions’.

Thus, where a plaintiff seeks to amend its Statement of Claim, this does not require it to comply with the rules governing withdrawal of admissions. If the defendant does not oppose the amendment, it cannot later complain that the plaintiff failed to follow the rules about withdrawing admissions. It might seek leave to reopen the grant of the amendment during the trial, but it bears the onus of establishing that it made a mistake in not opposing the amendment earlier.

At [60], Kirk JA said the defendant certainly may not do so on appeal ‘when the issue is raised not at the heel of the hunt but when the hunt is over’.

Tim Castle SC and Dana Levi appeared for the successful respondent on the appeal, which was dismissed with costs, instructed by Ge Wu at Legal Point Lawyers.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19c25a2fcadcc6a6ab4fe07c