Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 4)
Case
•
[2017] FCA 1264
•27 October 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 1264
[2017] FCA 1264
27 October 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited and Navman Wireless Australia Pty Ltd sought leave from the Federal Court of Australia to amend their pleadings in response to Precision Tracking Pty Ltd's defence. The applicants sought to add new claims for breach of contract, negligence, and misleading or deceptive conduct. The respondents opposed the application on the basis that it was an attempt to raise new causes of action outside the scope of the existing proceeding and that it was an abuse of process. The applicants argued that the amendments were necessary to address new evidence that had come to light during the course of the proceedings.
The court held that the applicants were entitled to amend their pleadings to the extent that the proposed amendments were not an attempt to raise new causes of action. The court found that the proposed amendments were relevant to the existing proceeding and did not seek to introduce new claims. The court also found that the amendments were not an abuse of process as they were not made in bad faith. However, the court refused to grant leave to amend in respect of three of the proposed amendments as they sought to introduce new causes of action outside the scope of the existing proceeding.
The court ordered that the applicants file and serve amended pleadings by 4 PM on 1 November 2017, excluding the three amendments in respect of which leave to amend had not been granted. The respondents were ordered to file amended pleadings in response by 4 PM on 6 November 2017. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the unopposed amendments and the costs of the contested interlocutory applications to amend. The interlocutory applications to amend were otherwise dismissed.
The court held that the applicants were entitled to amend their pleadings to the extent that the proposed amendments were not an attempt to raise new causes of action. The court found that the proposed amendments were relevant to the existing proceeding and did not seek to introduce new claims. The court also found that the amendments were not an abuse of process as they were not made in bad faith. However, the court refused to grant leave to amend in respect of three of the proposed amendments as they sought to introduce new causes of action outside the scope of the existing proceeding.
The court ordered that the applicants file and serve amended pleadings by 4 PM on 1 November 2017, excluding the three amendments in respect of which leave to amend had not been granted. The respondents were ordered to file amended pleadings in response by 4 PM on 6 November 2017. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the unopposed amendments and the costs of the contested interlocutory applications to amend. The interlocutory applications to amend were otherwise dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited v Precision Tracking Pty Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 48
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
2
University of Sydney v ObjectiVision Pty Ltd
[2016] FCA 1199
University of Sydney v ObjectiVision Pty Ltd
[2016] FCA 1199