Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2025] FCA 565

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 565

File number(s): QUD 336 of 2023

Judgment of: MEAGHER J

Date of judgment: 30 May 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgments and orders – Orders – Orders giving effect to judgment – Leave to amend defence – Withdrawal of admissions – Costs

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.03

Cases cited:
Commissioner of Taxation v Warner (No 2) (2015) 244 FCR 498

Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 536

Division: General Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency

Number of paragraphs: 21

Date of hearing: Determined on papers

Solicitor for the Applicants: Results Legal Solutions

Solicitor for the Respondents: Piper Alderman

ORDERS

QUD 336 of 2023

BETWEEN:
MR JUSTIN THOMAS HAGGARTY (IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JUSTIN HAGGARTY BLOODLLINE TRUST)

First Applicant

MR DARREN GEOFFREY HAGGARTY (IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE DARREN HAGGARTY BLOODLINE TRUST)

Second Applicant

MR CAMPBELL JAMES CRADDOCK

Third Applicant

AND:
R.X. PLASTICS PTY LTD ACN 009 787 688

First Respondent

SIMPLY ON LINE PTY LTD ACN 120 276 306

Second Respondent

MR SCOTT JON HAGGARTY (IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SCOTT HAGGARTY BLOODLINE TRUST) (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MEAGHER J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Respondents’ application for leave to amend and to withdraw admissions
1.Pursuant to rule 16.53(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Rules), leave is granted to the third to sixth respondents to amend their defence substantially in the form of the proposed amended defence to the further amended statement of claim annexed to the application filed 15 May 2025 (amended defence).
2.Within 1 business day of the date of this order, the third to sixth respondents are to file and serve their amended defence.
3.Pursuant to rule 26.11(2)(b) of the Rules, leave is granted to the third to sixth respondents to withdraw the admissions of paragraphs 13B, 14, 15, 19 and 67 of the further amended statement of claim filed 5 August 2024 contained in the defence filed 26 August 2024.
4.Within 1 business day of the date of this order, the third to sixth respondents are to file and serve a form 47 notice of withdrawal.
5.By 4:00pm AEST on 3 June 2025, the applicants file and serve their reply to the amendments in the amended defence and any affidavits in response to the amendments in the amended defence.

6.Costs reserved.

Discovery application
7.The applicants pay the third to sixth respondents’ costs of the applicants’ application filed 14 May 2025 on a party and party basis.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MEAGHER J
INTRODUCTION

This matter concerned the form of orders to be made to give effect to the Court’s reasons for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 565
Case: [2025] FCA 565
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd (No 2), the Federal Court was tasked with deciding on an application for leave to amend a defence and to withdraw certain admissions. The respondents, RX Plastics Pty Ltd, sought leave to amend their defence and to withdraw specific admissions they had previously made in the proceedings against Haggarty. The court was required to determine whether the respondents should be granted leave to amend their defence and to withdraw the admissions, and if so, what conditions should apply to these actions.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate exercise of discretion under the Federal Court Rules 2011 regarding amendments to pleadings and the withdrawal of admissions. The court had to consider the circumstances in which leave to amend should be granted, including the stage of the proceedings, the impact of the proposed amendments on the applicant's case, and whether the respondents had acted promptly and without undue delay. The court also had to decide whether the proposed amendments were likely to be meritorious and whether the withdrawal of admissions would prejudice the applicant.

In its decision, the court accepted the respondents' submissions and granted leave for the respondents to amend their defence substantially in the form of the proposed amended defence. The court emphasised the need for the respondents to file and serve their amended defence and a form 47 notice of withdrawal within specified timeframes. Additionally, the court ordered that the applicants were to reply to the amendments in the amended defence by a specified date, with costs of the respondents' application for leave to amend and to withdraw admissions to be paid by the applicants on a party and party basis. The court reserved the issue of costs related to the overall proceedings.

The final orders of the court provided that the respondents were granted leave to amend their defence and to withdraw certain admissions, subject to the conditions outlined in the order. The applicants were required to respond to the amended defence within a specified period, and the applicants were to bear the costs of the respondents' application for leave to amend and to withdraw admissions. The broader issue of costs in the proceedings remained reserved for further determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondents’ application for leave to amend and to withdraw admissions

1. Pursuant to rule 16.53(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Rules), leave is granted to the third to sixth respondents to amend their defence substantially in the form of the proposed amended defence to the further amended statement of claim annexed to the application filed 15 May 2025 (amended defence).

2. Within 1 business day of the date of this order, the third to sixth respondents are to file and serve their amended defence.

3. Pursuant to rule 26.11(2)(b) of the Rules, leave is granted to the third to sixth respondents to withdraw the admissions of paragraphs 13B, 14, 15, 19 and 67 of the further amended statement of claim filed 5 August 2024 contained in the defence filed 26 August 2024.

4. Within 1 business day of the date of this order, the third to sixth respondents are to file and serve a form 47 notice of withdrawal.

5. By 4:00pm AEST on 3 June 2025, the applicants file and serve their reply to the amendments in the amended defence and any affidavits in response to the amendments in the amended defence.

6. Costs reserved.

Discovery application

7. The applicants pay the third to sixth respondents’ costs of the applicants’ application filed 14 May 2025 on a party and party basis.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

The respondents’ submissions in that regard must be accepted. CONCLUSION I will therefore make orders in terms of those now proposed by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	QUD 336 of 2023
Judgment of:	MEAGHER J
Date of judgment:	30 May 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgments and orders – Orders – Orders giving effect to judgment – Leave to amend defence – Withdrawal of admissions – Costs
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.03
Cases cited:	Commissioner of Taxation v Warner (No 2) (2015) 244 FCR 498 Haggarty v RX Plastics Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 536
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs:	21
Date of hearing:	Determined on papers
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Results Legal Solutions
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Piper Alderman

ORDER MADE BY:	MEAGHER J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 MAY 2025