Mango Capital v Patsis (No 2)

In this matter, Mango Capital sought leave to amend its statement of claim to respond to a cross-claim filed by Patsis a year earlier. The dispute between the parties centred around allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with investment transactions. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delay in filing the amendment was attributable to the representative error, and if granting the amendment would be consistent with the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) to ensure just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceeding.

The court held that the delay in filing the amendment was due to a representative error, and that it was in the interests of justice to permit the amendment. The court considered the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and the fact that the amendment was not being used as a delay tactic, but rather to address the cross-claim. The court also noted that the respondent had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay. The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, with costs awarded to the applicant for the application.