J.F. & B.E. Palmer Pty Ltd v Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd

NOT

FOR

DISTRIBUTION

I N THE	FEDERAL	COURT	AUSTRALIA	OF	)
1

NEW soum WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	NO.	G . 3 4 7	O f 1985
)

D I V I S I O N	G E N E R A L	)
BETWEEN :

J . F .

PALMER

PTY.	L I M I T E D A p p l i c a n t

AND

BLOWERS AND LOWE PTY.

L I M I T E D

F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t

AND :

COROBIMILLA PTY.

L I M I T E D

Second

R e s p o n d e n t

EX-TEMPORE

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J .

A p p l i c a t i o n has

been m a d e t o amend

t h e defence t o ra ise

s.85(1)

t h e Trade P rac t i ces A c t

1 9 7 4

a s a

d e f e n c e i n t h i s

proceedlng.

The

a p p l i c a t i o n

h a s

been

m a d e

a f t e r

two

w l t n e s s e s ,

whose

evidence

i n v a r y i n g ways may

have been

re levant t o s u c h a

defence,

have

been

excused

t o

r e t u r n

t o

Q u e e n s l a n d .

The

a p p l i c a t i o n

opposed.

would be inconslstent wlth the passage 1n the joint majorlty

~udgment

of the Hlgh Court

In Yorke v . Lucas (1985)

61 A.L.R.

307 at 309. In any event,

lt seems to me that ~t would be

prejudlcial to permlt the amendment at

thls late stage.

For both those reasons, I

reject the application to

amend the defence.

I	certlfy that this and the

preceding one (1) page are

true copy of

the Reasons for

Judgment herein of hls Honour

Mr. Justlce Burchett.

Associate

Dated: 10 December, 1986.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of J.F. & B.E. Palmer Pty Ltd v Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd before the Federal Court of Australia involved a dispute where the applicant sought to amend its defence to include a new defence under section 85(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The application was made after two witnesses, whose evidence could have been relevant to this new defence, had been excused from returning to give evidence in Queensland. The first respondent, Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd, opposed the application, and the second respondent, CorobImilla Pty Ltd, also participated in the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether it was appropriate to allow the amendment to the defence at such a late stage in the proceedings, and if doing so would be consistent with the principles established in the High Court's decision in Yorke v. Lucas. The court had to weigh the potential prejudice to the opposing party against the need to allow amendments that could affect the outcome of the case.

Justice Burchett, delivering the judgment, concluded that permitting the amendment would be prejudicial to the respondents and inconsistent with the principles set out in Yorke v. Lucas. He held that it would not be just to allow the amendment at such a late stage, and therefore rejected the application. The judge certified that the provided transcript accurately reflected the reasons for the judgment.

No further orders were noted beyond the rejection of the application to amend the defence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established