John Bridgeman Limited, in the matter of John Bridgeman Limited v National Stock Exchange of Australia Limited (No 2)
Case
•
[2021] FCA 319
•31 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
John Bridgeman Limited, in the matter of John Bridgeman Limited v National Stock Exchange of Australia Limited (No 2) [2021] FCA 319
[2021] FCA 319
31 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
John Bridgeman Limited sought leave to file affidavits after the due date and a further amended statement of claim. The National Stock Exchange of Australia Limited opposed the application. The dispute arose out of an alleged failure by the defendant to settle a debt owed to the plaintiff. The matter was before the Federal Court of Australia.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be permitted to file the affidavits after the due date and whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim. The overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions was to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. The court also needed to consider the costs consequences of granting leave.
The court held that the affidavits could be relied upon at trial but ordered that the plaintiff pay indemnity costs for the interlocutory application. The plaintiff was granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the interlocutory application on an indemnity basis and that the parties confer to produce a minute of consent or separate minutes of proposed orders. The matter was listed for a case management hearing.
The court ordered that the plaintiff could rely on the affidavits filed after the due date and file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the interlocutory application on an indemnity basis. The parties were required to confer to produce a minute of consent or separate minutes of proposed orders, and the matter was listed for a case management hearing.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be permitted to file the affidavits after the due date and whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim. The overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions was to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. The court also needed to consider the costs consequences of granting leave.
The court held that the affidavits could be relied upon at trial but ordered that the plaintiff pay indemnity costs for the interlocutory application. The plaintiff was granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the interlocutory application on an indemnity basis and that the parties confer to produce a minute of consent or separate minutes of proposed orders. The matter was listed for a case management hearing.
The court ordered that the plaintiff could rely on the affidavits filed after the due date and file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the interlocutory application on an indemnity basis. The parties were required to confer to produce a minute of consent or separate minutes of proposed orders, and the matter was listed for a case management hearing.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Costs
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Interlocutory Application
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Skildum-Reid v University of Queensland [2024] FCA 733
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Skildum-Reid v University of Queensland
[2024] FCA 733
BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v Corelogic Australia Pty Ltd
[2020] FCA 1556
Skildum-Reid v University of Queensland
[2024] FCA 733
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
John Bridgeman Limited, in the matter of John Bridgeman Limited v National Stock Exchange of Australia Limited
[2020] FCA 941
Black & Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd
[2007] FCA 1623