LM Investment Management Ltd (in liq) v EY (No 2)

The case of LM Investment Management Ltd (in liq) v EY (No 2) involves a claim by the liquidator of LM Investment Management Ltd against EY, seeking damages for breaches of contract, negligence, and various statutory contraventions. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around the ability to amend pleadings outside the limitation period and whether such amendments could introduce new causes of action or particularise existing ones. Specifically, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's fifth further amended statement of claim, which introduced a new cause of action, could be allowed despite being outside the limitation period.

The court found that while Rule 378 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) allows amendments before a trial date is listed, it did not expressly permit amendments that introduce new causes of action outside the limitation period. However, the court considered that the plaintiff’s reliance on a possible construction of the relevant section did not bar the introduction of a new cause of action. The court held that the plaintiff could amend the claim to include the new cause of action, provided the pleading sufficiently supported the inference of necessary awareness or knowledge. The court concluded that paragraph 121 of the fifth further amended statement of claim should be struck out, but leave should be given to replead certain paragraphs.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the need to balance the procedural rules with the substantive rights of the parties. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's intention to maintain certain claims and the potential necessity to replead specific paragraphs to comply with pleading requirements. The court's decision was aimed at ensuring that the plaintiff had the opportunity to pursue its claims while adhering to the procedural constraints imposed by the limitation periods and rules of pleading.

The court ordered that the plaintiff has leave to amend the claim in accordance with the application filed on 10 August 2018. It also ordered that paragraph 121 of the fifth further amended statement of claim be struck out, with leave to replead certain paragraphs. Further, the plaintiff was directed to file a sixth further amended statement of claim by a specified date, and the defendants were required to file and serve a defence. The costs of the application were awarded to the defendants, and the proceeding was scheduled for review on a specified date. Additionally, the court corrected certain references in a previous order to align with the correct paragraphs in the second further amended statement of claim.