CNOOC PETROLEUM NORTH AMERICA ULC v 801 SEVENTH INC

This decision concerned the determination of a threshold question regarding whether: (1) the Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim (the “CNOOC Parties”) needed to apply to amend their respective Statements of Defence to Counterclaim pursuant to Rule 3.15; or (2) the CNOOC Parties were entitled to amend their respective Statements of Defence to Counterclaim as of right following the Defendants’ (the “Landlord Parties”) filing of an Amended Response to Request for Particulars, pursuant to Rule 3.62.

Associate Chief Justice Nixon held that the CNOOC Parties did not have the right to amend their Statements of Defence to Counterclaim pursuant to Rule 3.62. First, Nixon A.C.J. found that the requirements of Rule 3.67 were satisfied and that the Pleadings in the Action were therefore closed for the purposes of Rules 3.62 and 3.65. Second, Associate Chief Justice Nixon found that a Response to Request for Particulars did not constitute a ‘Pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 3.62. Finally, Nixon A.C.J. noted that it would be more economical and procedurally efficient for the CNOOC Parties to apply pursuant to Rule 3.65, rather than permitting amendments pursuant to Rule 3.62 and requiring the Landlord Parties to bring an Application to Strike or Reply to the amended Statement of Defences to Counterclaim pursuant to Rule 3.68.

In the result, the Court ruled that the CNOOC Parties were required to apply for leave to amend their respective Statements of Defence to Counterclaim in accordance with Rule 3.65.