Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The plaintiffs, Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust and Hay, initiated proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, alleging various breaches of statutory duty and unconscionable conduct. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary issue was the validity and timing of certain amendments to the plaintiffs' statements of claim. Specifically, the court had to determine whether these amendments introduced new causes of action that were time-barred under relevant statutes and whether they complied with the rules of court.

The legal issues centered on whether the amendments to the statements of claim introduced new causes of action outside the limitation period, and whether these amendments were permissible under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The plaintiffs argued that the amendments were necessary to clarify and expand upon their existing claims, while the bank contended that these amendments introduced new causes of action that were barred by limitation and were unclear in their allegations. The court had to balance the principles of procedural fairness against the need to maintain the integrity of the limitation periods.

In its judgment, the court found that some of the amendments introduced new causes of action that were beyond the permissible limitation periods. However, the court also determined that other amendments were permissible as they did not introduce new causes of action but rather clarified and expanded upon the existing claims. Consequently, the court allowed certain paragraphs of the amended statements of claim to stand while striking out others that introduced time-barred claims or were unclear. The court provided leave to re-plead the struck-out paragraphs in a manner consistent with the court's reasoning.

The final orders of the court were to allow certain paragraphs of the amended statements of claim to take effect from the date of the amendments, while striking out other paragraphs with leave to re-plead. Specifically, in case number 6906 of 2010, paragraphs 48 through 68 and 73 through 76 of the amended statement of claim filed on 3 October 2014 were allowed to stand, while paragraphs 77 through 79, 81 through 84, and 87 were struck out with leave to re-plead. Similarly, in case number 6907 of 2010, paragraphs 51 through 72 and 77 through 80 of the amended statement of claim were allowed, while paragraphs 81 through 84 and 33 were struck out with leave to re-plead.