LPH Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (as trustee for the LPH Developments Keegan Street Trust) v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd [No 4]

The matter before the court was an application by Jameson Moore Pty Ltd to either substitute or amend the name of the plaintiff, LPH Developments Pty Ltd, on the grounds of a change in trusteeship. The plaintiff, LPH Developments, was in liquidation, and the application sought to replace the name of the trustee on the proceedings. The court was required to consider the principles governing the substitution or amendment of a party's name due to such a change and whether the application should proceed before an investigation into the directors' transactions was completed. Additionally, the defendant sought to strike out the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution, considering the plaintiff's inability to fund the litigation, a pattern of non-compliance with case management orders, and failure to comply with a security for costs order and other cost orders.

The court examined the relevant principles for substituting or amending the name of a plaintiff in cases of a change of trustee. It found that the application could not be decided until the liquidators had investigated the transactions of the directors. Regarding the application to strike out the claim, the court considered the plaintiff's inability to fund litigation, the pattern of non-compliance with case management orders, and the failure to comply with a security for costs order and other cost orders. The court noted that a springing order might be appropriate, contingent on the liquidators' investigation. Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that the order should be made until the liquidators had completed their investigation into the directors' transactions.

No final orders were made in this instance. The court's decision hinged on the outcome of the liquidators' investigation into the directors' transactions, and a further hearing was scheduled to address the application to substitute or amend the name of the plaintiff once the investigation was complete. The court also noted that if the plaintiff failed to comply with further orders, a springing order might be made to strike out the claim. The matter remained pending, with the court's decision on the final orders to be made after the liquidators' investigation was completed and further submissions were made by the parties.