National Australia Bank v Priestley (No 2)

The proceedings were an appeal by Priestley against an earlier decision which dismissed his defence in an action brought by National Australia Bank. The bank sought a judgment for the recovery of monies owed under a facility agreement. The dispute centred on the bank's entitlement to interest pursuant to the agreement and the validity of the facility agreement. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The key legal issues were whether Priestley was entitled to further amend his defence and if the proposed amended defence was appropriate. The court needed to determine whether the deficiencies in the earlier amended defence were adequately addressed and whether the proposed pleadings were embarrassing. The bank argued that the deficiencies were not addressed and that the proposed pleadings were embarrassing.

The court found that the deficiencies in the earlier amended defence were not addressed in the proposed amended defence. The court held that the proposed pleadings were embarrassing as they attempted to raise new issues that were not previously pleaded. The court noted that the proposed pleadings were not only a further amendment of the defence but also a substantial alteration of the case. The court concluded that the proposed pleadings were not appropriate and refused leave to file the further amended defence.

The court ordered that the earlier amended defence stand as the defence in the proceeding and that the bank's claim proceed to trial on the basis of the pleadings as they stood. The court also ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by Priestley.