Keskin and Keskin (No 2)

This matter concerned an application by the wife to amend her Further Amended Response in proceedings between Mr and Mrs Keskin. The case had been remitted from the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia following an appeal. The original trial judge had made findings regarding the ownership of a company that was part of the matrimonial property pool. Although the wife had successfully appealed aspects of the original decision, she had not challenged the trial judge's findings on the ownership of the company at that time.

The central legal issue before Macmillan J was whether the wife should be granted leave to file an Amended Response, which would allow her to re-agitate the issue of the company's ownership. This application was opposed by the husband, who argued that the wife was estopped from changing her position due to the principles of issue estoppel. The court was required to determine if permitting the wife to re-agitate this issue would cause significant injustice to the husband and the second respondent.

Macmillan J applied the principles of issue estoppel, finding that the wife was precluded from re-litigating the ownership of the company. The court reasoned that the wife had not challenged these findings on appeal and that allowing her to do so now would cause significant injustice to the husband and the second respondent, who had proceeded on the basis of the earlier findings. Consequently, leave to file the Further Amended Response was refused.