Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Amendment of Defence and Tendency Notice)

In Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Amendment of Defence and Tendency Notice) [2026] FCA 1310, the Federal Court dealt with two interlocutory applications in a long-running proceeding between Hubexo and the CoreLogic respondents, which include RP Data Pty Ltd and Cordell Information Pty Ltd. Hubexo's underlying claim concerns allegations that the respondents induced subscribers to breach subscription agreements and copied project data from Hubexo's LeadManager product, said to compete with the respondents' Cordell Connect service.

The respondents sought leave to amend their defence, including withdrawing an earlier admission, after a hearing that had already run for several weeks. Justice Needham allowed the amendment, having been satisfied the earlier admission arose from an error by senior counsel rather than a deliberate litigation strategy, notwithstanding the lateness of the application. Hubexo separately sought to rely on tendency evidence concerning a pattern of accessing competitors' subscription services, which the Court also admitted, relevant to proving the alleged inducement and copying conduct.

The decision addresses procedural questions, including the circumstances in which a late admission can be withdrawn and when tendency evidence will be admitted in a commercial proceeding, rather than resolving the substantive dispute. A later costs judgment, Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1443, ordered the respondents to pay Hubexo's indemnity costs of the amendment application. Businesses operating subscription based data or information products, and their counterparts accused of improperly accessing competitor services, may find the handling of subscriber terms and access monitoring in this matter instructive.