Oswal v Apache Corporation (No 3)

[2014] FCA 835

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Oswal v Apache Corporation (No 3) [2014] FCA 835

Citation:	Oswal v Apache Corporation (No 3) [2014] FCA 835
Parties:	PANKAJ OSWAL v APACHE CORPORATION
File number:	WAD 389 of 2013
Judge:	GILMOUR J
Date of judgment:	8 August 2014
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend defence – r 16.53 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – principles relevant to grant of leave – leave to amend granted
Legislation:	Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 82 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.53 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Cases cited:	Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority (2006) 33 WAR 82 I & L Securities Pty Limited v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Limited (2002) 210 CLR 109 Pascoe v Boensch [2009] FCA 1240 S.P.I. Spirits (Cyprus) Ltd v Diageo Australia Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1035 Thomson v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2012] FCAFC 15 University of Sydney v ResMed Limited (No 5) [2012] FCA 232
Date of hearing:	4 August 2014
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	28
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr DA McLure
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Kennedys
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr SK Dharmananda SC with Mr J Garas
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clyde & Co

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 389 of 2013

BETWEEN:	PANKAJ OSWAL Applicant
AND:	APACHE CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 AUGUST 2014
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent is granted leave to amend its defence in terms of the respondent’s minute of proposed amended defence dated 4 March 2014.   

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 389 of 2013

BETWEEN:	PANKAJ OSWAL Applicant
AND:	APACHE CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE:	8 AUGUST 2014
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The respondent, Apache Corporation (Apache), applies for leave to amend its defence. 

2. Apache relies on the affidavit of Ms Jennifer Anne Thornton sworn 22 July 2014.

   Relevant rules and principles

3. As pleadings have closed, the respondent requires leave to amend its defence: r 16.53 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

4. The Court has a broad discretion to grant leave to amend. However, the discretion is to be exercised with regard to the overarching purpose set out in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA), namely that proceedings are resolved justly, according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible: University of Sydney v ResMed Limited (No 5) [2012] FCA 232 at [14].

5. The principles generally applicable concerning applications for leave to amend are well established and include as the starting point that all amendments should be made and allowed that are necessary to ensure the real questions in controversy between the parties are decided: see, eg