Greig v Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liq)
Case
•
[2002] QSC 298
•1 October 2002
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Greig v Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] QSC 298
[2002] QSC 298
1 October 2002
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Greig commenced proceedings against Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liquidation) seeking to recover damages for breach of contract and other claims. Stramit Corporation Ltd (ACN 005 010 195) was later identified as a party that should have been included in the original proceedings, but the limitation periods had expired under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Greig applied to amend the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent and to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd. Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liquidation) opposed the application.
The court had to decide whether it was appropriate to amend the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent despite the expiry of the limitation periods under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court also had to decide whether it was appropriate to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd.
The court held that it was appropriate to amend the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent and to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd. The court found that the limitation periods under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) did not prevent the amendment of the originating application and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the amendment. The court also found that it was appropriate to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd because it was in the interests of justice to do so.
The court dismissed the defendant's application. The court made an order amending the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent and extending the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd.
The court had to decide whether it was appropriate to amend the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent despite the expiry of the limitation periods under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court also had to decide whether it was appropriate to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd.
The court held that it was appropriate to amend the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent and to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd. The court found that the limitation periods under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) did not prevent the amendment of the originating application and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the amendment. The court also found that it was appropriate to extend the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd because it was in the interests of justice to do so.
The court dismissed the defendant's application. The court made an order amending the originating application to include Stramit Corporation Ltd as a respondent and extending the time within which the application could be brought against Stramit Corporation Ltd.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Amendment of Pleadings
-
Extension of Time
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31
Cases Citing This Decision
8
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher
[2014] NSWCA 31
Greig v Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd (in liq)
[2002] QSC 343
Sutherland v Dexion Pty Ltd
[2003] NSWSC 24
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Harwood v The Queen
[2002] HCA 20
Brown v DML Resources Pty Ltd
[2001] NSWSC 590
Matthews, Harry v Ross Neilson Investments Pty Ltd
[1995] FCA 1009