Which condition would NOT lead to refusal of an amendment?

The condition that would not lead to the refusal of an amendment is the current attorney's recommendation. In the context of civil procedure in New South Wales, a party's attorney is often the best positioned to assess the merits of an amendment and its potential impact on the case. If the current attorney recommends the amendment, it suggests that they believe the changes will assist the case and are appropriate given the circumstances.

In practice, courts generally respect the judgment of an attorney who is familiar with the case and strategically sound advice can lead to a more robust presentation of the issues at trial. Therefore, the presence of an attorney's endorsement typically supports the notion that the amendment should be allowed, rather than it being a reason to refuse it.

In contrast, the other conditions—such as deliberate framing of the case, the amendment being futile, and inadequate explanation for the delay—are commonly factors that may lead to a court declining to permit an amendment. Courts are concerned about preventing parties from manipulating the legal process for strategic advantages or bringing forward amendments that do not advance the case meaningfully or without justifiable reasons. Hence, the condition regarding the current attorney’s recommendation stands out as a valid basis for granting an amendment rather than refusing it.