SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Firstmac Ltd & Ors v Hunt & Hunt (a firm) [2018] QSC 258
PARTIES:
FIRSTMAC LTD (formerly known as Tonto Home Loans Pty Limited)
ACN 094 145 963(first plaintiff)
TONTO HOME LOANS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 104 268 297(second plaintiff)
QUEENSLAND STATE HOME LOANS PTY LTD
ACN 072 252 030(third plaintiff)
v
HUNT & HUNT (A FIRM) (now known as Cooper Grace Ward)
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
SC No 2466 of 2015
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
9 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 March 2018
JUDGE:
Bond J
ORDER:
The Court directs as follows:
1. The plaintiffs must notify the defendant and the Associate to Bond J by 4:00pm on 16 November 2018 whether they wish an opportunity to be heard on what these reasons have identified as apparent deficiencies in their pleading;
2. If the plaintiffs do wish to be heard on that question, the proceeding will be listed before Bond J on a date to be fixed between 26 and 29 November 2018 to permit that to occur; and
3. If the plaintiffs do not wish to be heard on that question, then the parties are directed to bring in minutes of order consistent with these reasons by 4:00pm on 23 November 2018, and any dispute between them as to the appropriate form of such orders will be listed before Bond J on a date to be fixed between 26 and 29 November 2018 for resolution.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – GENERALLY – where, after the close of pleadings, the plaintiffs foreshadowed an amended statement of claim – where the Court ordered that the plaintiffs file and serve an amended statement of claim by a particular date (which was subsequently extended) – where the plaintiffs indicated they did not require leave for any of their amendments – where directions were made to permit the question of leave to be resolved by requiring the defendant to bring an application to strike out or disallow the amendments once the amended statement of claim was delivered in its amended form – where the plaintiffs delivered their amended statement of claim – where the defendant applied to strike out certain amendments made on the grounds that they raised new time-barred causes of actions for which leave of the Court was required, with no such leave having been sought or obtained – where the plaintiffs opposed the application on the basis that the amendments did not give rise to new causes of action from those pleaded in the original pleading, or alternatively, the plaintiffs sought leave to make the amendments – whether the plaintiffs’ amendments made in their amended statement of claim should be struck out – whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to make the amendments sought
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 16
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 375, r 376(1), r 376(4), r 379,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Firstmac Ltd v Hunt & Hunt (a firm) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] QSC 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' amendments introduced new time-barred causes of action, which required leave of the court. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to make the amendments. The court considered the nature of the amendments and whether they were within the scope of the original pleadings. The defendant argued that the amendments were substantive and introduced new causes of action that were time-barred, while the plaintiffs maintained that the amendments were merely clarifications or did not introduce new causes of action. The court was required to weigh these arguments and determine whether the amendments were permissible.
The court found that the amendments introduced new matters that were not pleaded in the original statement of claim, and therefore required leave of the court. However, the plaintiffs had not sought or obtained leave for these amendments. The court held that the plaintiffs' amendments should be struck out as they introduced new time-barred causes of action without the necessary leave. The court directed the plaintiffs to notify the defendant and the Associate to Bond J by a specified date if they wished to be heard on the issue of deficiencies in their pleading. If the plaintiffs chose not to be heard, the parties were directed to bring in minutes of order consistent with the court's reasons, and any disputes would be resolved by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court directs as follows:
1. The plaintiffs must notify the defendant and the Associate to Bond J by 4:00pm on 16 November 2018 whether they wish an opportunity to be heard on what these reasons have identified as apparent deficiencies in their pleading;
2. If the plaintiffs do wish to be heard on that question, the proceeding will be listed before Bond J on a date to be fixed between 26 and 29 November 2018 to permit that to occur; and
3. If the plaintiffs do not wish to be heard on that question, then the parties are directed to bring in minutes of order consistent with these reasons by 4:00pm on 23 November 2018, and any dispute between them as to the appropriate form of such orders will be listed before Bond J on a date to be fixed between 26 and 29 November 2018 for resolution.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.