Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd v RP Data Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd, a company, pursued legal action against RP Data Pty Ltd. The dispute arose out of the plaintiff's claims relating to alleged breaches of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The plaintiff's ex-sole director and shareholder, who was initially a co-plaintiff, had been disqualified from managing corporations for five years, and the plaintiff had not appointed a new director. As a result, there was no relevant individual authorised to pursue the proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff. RP Data Pty Ltd sought the dismissal of the proceedings on the basis of the plaintiff's lack of due despatch in appointing a new director and thus, the absence of a relevant person to conduct the litigation.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's failure to appoint a new director justified the dismissal of the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a prior pleading could stand as the answer to an amended pleading under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's defence could be struck out and whether judgment should be given to the cross-claimant due to the plaintiff's failure to respond to the cross-claim. Finally, the court had to consider whether costs should be awarded against the non-party, the plaintiff's current sole shareholder and ex-sole director, under the criteria set out in FPM Constructions Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Blue Mountains.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to appoint a new director after the disqualification of its ex-sole director and shareholder justified the dismissal of the proceedings. The court held that, while the former Supreme Court Rules provision that a prior pleading stands as the answer to an amended pleading was not incorporated into the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the court could still direct that a prior pleading stand as the answer to an amended pleading as part of case management. The court also determined that the plaintiff's defence should be struck out and that judgment should be given to the cross-claimant, as the plaintiff had failed to respond to the cross-claim. However, the court did not make any orders for costs against the non-party, the plaintiff's current sole shareholder and ex-sole director, as the criteria in FPM Constructions Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Blue Mountains were not met.