Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 4)

In the case of Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 4), the plaintiffs sought to set aside summary judgments made in favour of two defendants. The judgments, which were granted under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, had previously been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the Full Court. The plaintiffs argued that they had a new argument relating to the application of the definition of derivative in section 761D of the Corporations Act 2001 that had not been considered at first instance or on appeal, and which could potentially lead to the relief they claimed. The court had to determine whether the summary judgments were interlocutory for the purpose of setting them aside, and if there were special or exceptional circumstances justifying the setting aside of the judgments.

The court began by identifying the relevant principles on an application to set aside summary judgment. The court noted that, although the orders were interlocutory, the need for finality in litigation remained important, and that the power to set aside the judgments should be exercised only in special or exceptional circumstances. The court also highlighted that the plaintiffs had not provided an explanation as to why the new allegations had not been advanced at the time of the application for summary judgment, and that there were difficulties with the new argument. The court further considered that other claims not precluded by the judgments should have been brought forward before the application for summary judgment.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application to set aside the judgments and refused the plaintiffs leave to file an amended statement of claim in the terms proposed. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated special or exceptional circumstances that would justify setting aside the summary judgments. The court further held that the plaintiffs' new argument was not sufficient to warrant setting aside the judgments, and that the other claims should have been brought forward before the application for summary judgment.

The court's final orders were that the amended notice of motion filed on 22 December 2010 be dismissed. The plaintiffs were not granted leave to file an amended statement of claim in the terms proposed, and the summary judgments in favour of the two defendants remained in place.