The Supreme Court considered, and duly rejected, a late application for pleading a statutory bar against the Nominal Defendant from seeking contribution in Jausnik v Nominal Defendant  ACTSC 251.
The primary case was a high profile claim for compensation by an ACT Police Officer from the Nominal Defendant claiming psychological damage, who subsequently sought contribution from an individual police officer and NSW. The Plaintiff and the individual officer arrived on the scene of a motor vehicle accident following a NSW Police pursuit.
The first third party, being the individual officer, has sought to plead a bar under the NSW Police Act protecting individual members against personal liable:
Section 213 of the Police Act 1990 (NSW) (‘Police Act’) provides:
213 Protection from personal liability
A member of the NSW Police Force is not liable for any injury or damage caused by any act or omission of the member in the exercise by the member in good faith of a function conferred or imposed by or under this or any other Act or law (whether written or unwritten).
This bar wasn’t pleaded until late in the game (after pleadings closed and even settlement) so the Court naturally turned to the Court Procedures Rules and our old friend Aon Risk. Particular points that were drawn from Aon include;
- First, generally speaking where a discretion is sought to be exercised in favour of one party and to the disadvantage of another, an explanation will be called for so as to permit the circumstances giving rise to the amendments to be weighed in the discretionary balance: 
- Parties have a right to bring proceedings but have to make choices as to what claims are made and how they will be framed and prosecuted. Limits will be placed on the ability to change the case they wish to run. That is why in seeking the just resolution of the dispute, reference is made to the parties having sufficient opportunity to identify the issues they seek to agitate: .
- The reference in the Rules to the need to minimise costs implies that an order for costs may not always provide sufficient compensation and therefore a just resolution to an application for leave to amend. It cannot therefore be said that a just resolution requires that a party be permitted to raise any arguable case at any point in the proceedings upon the payment of costs.
Ultimately Associate Justice Mossop was reasonably scathing of the application to amend and include the statutory defence. Mossop AsJ noted that the application was “extremely late”, making the application was “wholly attributable to lack of thoroughness in the [first third party’s] camp” (read professional liability claim), the amendment would create a complete defence and the amendment would essentially require reopening the question of liability including lengthy adjournments .
Aon Risk is essential reading for anyone hoping to conduct commercial litigation or wishing to challenge the Fourth Horseman to a game of chess. Like playing Death in Chess, commercial litigation requires punters to not commence anything without being thoroughly aware and prepared, and to have planned at least 3 moves ahead at all times if not able to win in 6.