Bell, C.A. v Australian Eagle Insurance Company Ltd

[1989] FCA 485

+$5 7 czCI

JUDGMENT No. ........ . ........ ...-

NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA -- )

- l

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G.354 of 1983

)

GENERAL DIVISION ) IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE
PRACTICES ACT 1974

BETWEEN: CAROL ANN BELL

Applicant

AND :  AUSTRALIAN EAGLE Il<SURA:iCL
COMPANY LIMITED

First Respondent,

Cross Claimant

.-	!,EDILJA DUST?>:<SS 'i7?573".5
P Y Y LIMITED

Second Respondent

KOBERT MEDINA

Thlrd Respondent,'
Cross Respondent

EX TEMPOPE REASOKS FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGKEtIT ALLOWING IN PRINCIPLE AMENDMCi<T OF CROSS-CLA1l.l

- . . . - - - - -.-p

confined to an arnend~ent of the contrartuaj ccu:?t :,.l-rlcl-r I ' :>.l?

BURCIIETT J.

It seems to me that I should !lot pcrmi'; an ;~men?rne,-rt

which would raisc a nc., count 1: t o ~ t , . hlrh is quite r~ ; s i d r anything suggested bp the existing pleadings; at this late stay-, naving regard to the prejudice that may arise and tti~c clc!:~y c n d

the effect upon the disposal of the I-,.n.i~~g, I d.r, n o i !l-r;n,, i

should permit that. I t ::-re pleadinq we.-? l - e d ~ a f t ~ d , so 5.7 i: l:?

t h e c r o s s - c l a i m a l r e a d y t o r a i s e , i n e f f e c t s l m p l y a l l e g i n g more

/

,/ f u l l y t h e t e r m s of t h e same c o n t r a c t and a n o t h e r b r e a c h , a p a r t

from t h e b r e a c h t h a t h a s a l r e a d y been a l l e g e d , t h i s mlght make

t h e p o s i t i o n somewhat different.

D e s p i t e t h e e l o q u e n t a rgument whlch h a s been p u t by Mr

F l i c k , I do n o t q u i t e s e e how t h e cross-examination of t h e

a p p l i c a n t h e r s e l f and h e r w i t n e s s c o u l d r e a l l y have been

s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by t h e a b s e n c e of a c o u n t of t h a t k l n d

from t h e c r o s s - c l a i m . I t may n e v e r t h e l e s s be t h a t i n p a r t i c u l a r

r e s p e c t s t h e conduc t o f t h e c a s e may have been d i f f e r e n t , a n d , o f

c o u r s e , I a c c e p t c o u n s e l ' s a s s u r a n c e t h a t , i n h l s o p i n i o n , i t

would have been d i f f e r e n t i n some r e q p e ' t s . However, t h a t c a n n n t

be	a l l o w e d	t o	prc--em?t	1	q u e s t ~ c r . of	t ! _ ~	5 1 c ~ n i t i c a n r e of	thri
d i f f e r e n c e , whlch	1s	a m a t t e r	on	which	I	have	t o make	some
determination.

I t h i n k a m a t t e r which ough t t o be g i v e n considerable

w e l g h t i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s t h e pos i t i c n of t h e applicant, whose

c a s e s h o u l d n o t be d e f e r r e d by r e a s o n of a n e l e v e n t h - h o u r

amendment i n r e s p e c t o f a c r o s s - c l a i m a s between t h c r e s p o n d e n t s .

I	t h i n k	t h a t	j u s t i c e	would	b e s t	be	met	i n t h i s	situation	by
indicating	t h a t	I	would	be	p r c p a r e ? ,	i n	p r l n c l p l e ,	L:]	p e r m i t	G

p r o p e r l y p l e a d e d c o n t r a c t u a l r c c n , t l L r:n 1-y t h r

c r o s s - c l a l m a n t	a l o n g	t h e	l i n e s	t h d t	:?age	been	~ n d i c a t c : l	~ n
a rgumen t ;	b u t	s u b l e c t	t o	t h e	r l g h t	c f	t h ?	c l - ? s s - r e s p o n d e ~ i t zo

a r g u e t h a t I c o u l d u l t i m a t e l y e.\ei-ci;c 1 d ~ ~ c ~ e t i f ~ l i L J L 1 5

r e l a t e d , n o t t c t h e r a t t e r s t h a t 11;;.;.1 b ? e n d ~ s ~ u s ; ~ t l > , b u t 1:q

expiry of a statute of limitations. I think I should reserve that right. In addition, I would reserve to the cross-respondent the right, of course, to argue that the statutes of limitations, upon the proper application of the principles relating to the operation of those statutes in relation to amendments, would prevent the amendment belng made at this stage.

I would reserve those questions to flnal argument, therefore, and, subject to them, permit a case to be advanced by the cross-claimant, such as I have indicated.

It would also be subject to leave to Mr rllcL to seek at a later stage of the hearing, after the amrndm?,it ! :as nec?n actually formall:cd, an adlournnent f tt? c~oss-cl;im, if nc then thinks he requires it. That would be on the footlng that any adjournment would not delay the application; but :iould, if that were done, inevitably involve a splittlncj of tht, hearing, which I would have to continue at some later date in respect of the cross-clalm.

I have not discussed in detail the questions of

discretion which have been raised in argument, but I have taken

into account the delay (which has been c_~lte consitlerablc! on

1ihlc11 ilr rllck placed reliance; tlxt L!ic ?1-3ad:ng sc:Ign. n2.1 is be re1:ed upon could have been ra:secl irl,nout dlf'ic~tlty icry

much earlier; and the preludice, on ;:hi cn h~ clddress?cl	? L s:-,me
length, arising out of the conduct of t h e case !hu:	f a r w~tkos,

thls matter ha'llnq been ralsed u11t11, a!:!:avcncly, s h n r L ~ y beLcr? he came to court this mornlng. I th:nl: 'uhsta!it~;~lly tllc other matters upon which he relied have been advcrted to already.

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e p r e c e d i n g

t h r e e ( 3 ) p a g e s a r e a t r u e

c o p y o f t h e R e a s o n s f o r

Judgment h e r e i n o f h i s Honour

Mr J u s t i c e B u r c h e t t .

D a t e d :  f 6 A u g u s t 1 9 8 9

C o u n s e l f o r t h e A p p l i c a n t : M K C . A . Ylng

S o l i c i t o r s	f o r	t h e	A p p l i c a n t :	S c h r a d e r	&	A s s o c i a t e s
C o u n s e l	f o r	t h e	r i r s t R e s p o n d e n t :	~ i s s	P .	Dercj in

S o l i c i t o r s f o r t h e F i r s t Responden t , ,

C r o s s	C l a i m a n t .	i l a l l e s o n s	Stel ,hen	J a c ~ u e q
C o u n s p l	Ecr	t h n	S ~ c c n d	R e s p o n d ~ n t a n d

T h i r d S c s ? c :Le.:: <: toss Fe=,ponderi t : n r G . r11r7.

S o l i c i t o r s f q r t h e Second RespondenL

a n d T h i r d R e s p o n d e n t ' C r o s s S e s p c n c l e n t : I . l i n t e r E l l ? ; o n