Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young (No 3)

Curve Securities Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Young, seeking damages and other remedies in relation to the defendant's alleged failure to repay a loan. The plaintiff sought to amend its Commercial List Statement, which was opposed by the defendant. After circulating several proposed forms of the amended statement, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend it. The plaintiff then sought to avoid paying the defendant's costs of the application for leave to amend the Commercial List Statement and a Notice of Motion seeking that the then current Summons and Commercial List Statement be struck out and orders as to discovery. The court had to determine whether the leave granted to file a further amendment constituted a dispensation or indulgence for which costs should be paid and whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion.

The court found that the leave granted to file a further amendment did not constitute a dispensation or indulgence for which costs should be paid. The court held that the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the Commercial List Statement was not frivolous or vexatious, and that the amendment was necessary to enable the plaintiff to pursue its claim. The court also found that the plaintiff should not pay the defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion, as the Notice of Motion was an attempt to relitigate an issue that had already been decided and was therefore vexatious. The court held that the plaintiff was not required to pay costs of its successful application for leave to amend the Commercial List Statement or the defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was not required to pay the defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion and that the plaintiff was only required to pay its own costs of the application for leave to amend the Commercial List Statement. The court also made orders as to discovery, allowing the plaintiff to obtain further information from the defendant in relation to the claim. The court held that the amendment to the Commercial List Statement was necessary to enable the plaintiff to pursue its claim and that the defendant's opposition to the amendment was not justified. The court found that the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the Commercial List Statement was not frivolous or vexatious, and that the amendment was necessary to enable the plaintiff to pursue its claim.