ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v MacKenzie

ABL Nominees Pty Ltd applied to the court to amend their pleadings in response to a summons issued by MacKenzie. The dispute centred on the enforcement of a guarantee, and the matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was permitted to raise new defences in an amended pleading and, if so, whether the amendment would be futile. Specifically, ABL Nominees sought to introduce the defence of unconscionable conduct based on the High Court's decision in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447.

The court considered the principles governing applications to amend pleadings, focusing on the futility test and the criteria for determining whether a proposed amendment would disclose a viable defence. It was noted that late applications to amend pleadings are generally disfavoured, and the court would only permit such amendments if they were not futile and if there was a reasonable prospect of success. The court examined whether the proposed Amadio defence was viable, taking into account the relevant principles for establishing unconscionable advantage and special disability. Ultimately, the court found that the proposed amended pleading did not disclose a viable defence, and therefore, the application to amend was refused.

The Federal Court held that the application to amend the pleadings was futile and refused the application. The court's reasoning was based on the unlikelihood of success in establishing the defence of unconscionable conduct, as the proposed amended pleading did not sufficiently allege the necessary elements for such a claim. Consequently, the court maintained the original pleadings and did not permit the introduction of the Amadio defence.