‘Compelling circumstances’ are required for Special Leave Applications concerning points of practice and procedure.
Tim Castle SC of 6 St James Hall and Dana Levi of Ground Floor Wentworth Chambers acted for a successful respondent in resisting a special leave application.
to the High Court of Australia, on a question about the construction of UCPR 12.6.
The case concerned an alleged admission in a plaintiff’s pleading. The applicant (defendant) contended that the plaintiff required leave to withdraw the ‘admission’ under UCPR 12.6, that it had received a certain amount in payment of a debt.
At the trial the applicant (defendant) did not oppose an amendment being made by the plaintiff, of the relevant paragraph in his pleading.
The NSW Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of Nixon J in favour of the plaintiff (respondent): Yufeng v Guo [2026] NSWCA 3.
Kirk JA held that UCPR 12.6 does not apply to plaintiffs, so as to impose an additional burden on a plaintiff seeking leave to amend its claim.
In its determination of the SLA on 7 May 2026, the High Court made particular mention of the need for an applicant to show ‘compelling circumstances’ where special leave is sought in relation to matters of practice and procedure: Yufeng v Guo [2026] HCADisp 118.
The instructing solicitor was Ge Wu of Legal Point Lawyers.