Manday Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The case of Manday Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia involves an application by the applicants to amend their pleadings. The applicants sought to add a new claim based on alleged misleading and deceptive conduct by the Bank. The application was opposed by the Bank, which argued that the amendment was not permissible under the Federal Court Rules and would cause prejudice. The primary issue before the court was whether the new pleading was based on the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim, and if granting leave to amend would be just. The court also considered whether the new claim would be subject to a limitation period and whether granting leave to amend would result in prejudice to the Bank.

The court found that the new claim for relief was not based on the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim. The new claim involved entirely new facts, specifically oral representations made by the Bank that were not referenced in the existing pleading. The court noted that the amendment sought to add a cause of action for a duty of care related to the keeping of adequate records, which was not previously pleaded. The court reasoned that the new claim would not be subject to the same limitation period as the existing claim, and that granting leave to amend would result in significant prejudice to the Bank. The court drew inferences about the potential prejudice based on the lapse of time since the alleged oral representations were made and the difficulty in obtaining evidence from the relevant Bank officer.

The court dismissed the application to amend the pleadings and ordered the applicants to pay the Bank’s costs associated with the abandoned claim for unconscionable conduct, as well as the costs of the motion. The court concluded that it was not just to permit the amendment given the entirely new facts upon which the new claim was based and the significant prejudice that would result to the Bank. The court emphasized the importance of focusing on the facts currently pleaded and determining whether the new claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts, as required by Federal Court Rules O 13 r 2. The orders of the court reflect the dismissal of the application to amend and the imposition of costs on the applicants.