Hastie Group Limited (in liq) v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (Formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd)

In the case of Hastie Group Limited (in liq) v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (Formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd), the Federal Court addressed several significant procedural matters, including applications for leave to amend pleadings, the removal of certain respondents, and the assessment of costs. The dispute originated from a liquidation process where the liquidators sought to recover assets and assert rights on behalf of the insolvent companies. The court was tasked with determining whether the liquidators should be granted leave to amend their pleadings and whether certain respondents should be removed from the proceedings.

The legal issues included whether the liquidators could amend their pleadings to include new claims against certain respondents, the existence of common issues among multiple respondents, and the appropriate basis for taxing costs thrown away. The court also considered whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

In its reasoning, the court found that leave should be granted for the liquidators to file amended pleadings against Baulderstone, including claims against Baulderstone Qld. It also concluded that certain respondents, such as Badge Constructions (SA) Pty Ltd and Lendlease Funds Management Limited, should be dismissed from the proceedings due to abandoned claims. Regarding costs, the court decided that costs thrown away should be taxed and paid forthwith unless there were specific reasons to delay payment. The court further determined that the proceedings should remain in the Federal Court due to its accrued jurisdiction.

The final orders required the parties to confer and file agreed minutes of orders by a specified date, or otherwise submit separate minutes and written submissions. The further case management hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to prepare a timetable for the proceeding's progression. The court also specified that any costs associated with abandoned claims should be borne by the liquidators, unless otherwise ordered.