Legal Research
Cases
Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd

Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd

Case [2003] FCA 206 18 March 2003

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave sought to amend Statement of Claim after close of evidence – amendments sought opposed by respondents – fresh issues raised - interests of justice – prejudice to respondents - not a function of pleadings to allow amendments which will enable case to be made out at close of evidence – argument that respondents would have conducted their case differently – whether prejudicial to allow amendments sought – whether leave should be granted to make further amendments to Statement of Claim
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 cited
Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 146 referred to
The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 referred to
Burnham v The City of Mordialloc (1956) VLR 239 referred to
Mercantile Mutual Insurance v Farrington (1996) 44 NSWLR 634 referred to
Gordon v MacGregor (1909) 8 CLR 316 referred to
R & C Products v S C Johnson (1993) 42 FCR 188 cited
Koninklijke Philips v Remington (1999) 91 FCR 167 cited
Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1228 cited
Twentieth Century Fox v S A Brewery (1996) 66 FCR 451 cited
Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 518 cited
WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK (for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim) v
CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 074 692 443), CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 692 443), CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 352 104), CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED, (ACN 064 512 385), KERROD GRANT PARK, OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (ABN 073 598 035), CHRISTOPHER COOTE, PHILLIP EMANUEL PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (ACN 002 693 512)
V 637 of 2001
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
18 MARCH 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 637 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK
(for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim)
APPLICANT

AND:

CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA)
PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 692 443)
FIRST RESPONDENT

CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 352 104)
SECOND RESPONDENT

CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
(ACN 064 512 385)
THIRD RESPONDENT

KERROD GRANT PARK
FOURTH RESPONDENT

OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (ABN 073 598 035)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER COOTE
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PHILLIP EMANUEL PRODUCTIONS LIMITED
(ACN 002 693 512)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Save for the amendment proposed in relation to accessorial liability of the fifth respondent for breach of Trust by the sixth respondent, the application for leave to amend the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondents in respect of the application for leave to amend.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206
Case: [2003] FCA 206
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Patrick, brought an action against Capital Finance Pty Ltd and other parties in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging various breaches of trust and fiduciary duties. The primary dispute centred around the alleged mismanagement of funds and the fiduciary obligations owed by the defendants. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend his statement of claim to include new claims and parties, specifically to add a claim for breach of trust against a new defendant who was not originally named.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his statement of claim to introduce new claims against additional defendants. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to amend his pleadings against the respondents' rights to be protected from unjustifiable delays and the potential prejudice that could result from the amendment. Additionally, the court needed to assess the relevance and admissibility of the new claims in relation to the original allegations.

In assessing the application, the court found that while the plaintiff had a right to amend his pleadings, the proposed amendments were largely unnecessary and redundant. The court held that the new claims did not substantially alter the nature of the dispute or introduce any new legal principles. Furthermore, the court considered that the proposed amendments would result in significant prejudice to the respondents, as it would require them to defend additional claims against a party that had not been originally named. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to amend the statement of claim, except for a specific amendment relating to the accessorial liability of one respondent for the breach of trust by another respondent. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the respondents' costs for the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Save for the amendment proposed in relation to accessorial liability of the fifth respondent for breach of Trust by the sixth respondent, the application for leave to amend the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents in respect of the application for leave to amend.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206

Most Recent Citation

ACN 060477830 in Liq Formerly T/A David Koo & Assoc P/L v K Koo [2008] SADC 170

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

Chelmer NZ Ltd v Financial and Energy Exchange Ltd
[2019] NSWDC 25

…Drinkwater [2017] NSWCA 114 National Australia Bank Ltd v Kim Francis Hunter & Anor (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 763 Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206 R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 215 Texts Cited: N/A Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Chelmer NZ Ltd (Plaintiff/Cross Defendant) Financial…
University of Sydney v ObjectiVision Pty Limited
[2017] FCA 554 Para 6

…in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 ( Aon ); Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206 at [10] (Tamberlin J) and Gloucester Shire Council v Fitch Ratings, Inc (No 2) [2017] FCA 248 at [86] (Wigney J).…
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich
[2009] NSWSC 1229

…k v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206 Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191 People's Department Store Inc v Wise [2004] 3 SCR 461 Permanent Building Society (in liq) v Wheeler (1994) 11 WAR 187 Permanent Building Society v Wheeler (1994) 11 WAR 187 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 R v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671; [1985…
ACN 060477830 in Liq Formerly T/A David Koo & Assoc P/L v K Koo
[2008] SADC 170 Para 2

…nces where such an amendment would raise fresh issues and would prejudice the respondents in such a way as to render the prejudice irremediable. [11] [2003] FCA 206 [12] ibid at [5]-[6] Findings…
Gould and Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board and Anor
[2007] AATA 1914

…Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 TVW Enterprises Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 11 FCR 293 Patrick v Capital Finance (Aust) Pty Limited [2003] FCA 206 Green v United States (1957) 355 US 184 Gill v Walton (1991) 25 NSWLR 190 National Australia Bank Limited v Nobile & Anor (1988) 100 ALR 227 … REASONS…
Pacific National (ACT) Limited (ACN 48 052 134 362) v Queensland Rail (ABN 47 564 947 264)
[2005] FCA 535 Para 5

…s were sought some time before the hearing, but rather are addressed in the following remarks of Tamberlin J in Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Limited [2003] FCA 206 (“Patrick”) at [10] as follows:- “The conduct of a lengthy complex commercial proceeding, such as the present, may, as the case is prepared and progr…
Gold Peg International P/L v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Ltd
[2004] FCA 1601 Para 13

…include Burnham v The City of Mordialloc (1956) VLR 239 at [241]; Gordon v MacGregor (1909) 8 CLR 316 at [321]; and Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 206 ( “Patrick”) . The cases are distinguishable if only because amendments were sought after the close of evidence. See also The Commonwealth v Verwayen…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 1228 Para 32

…nson (1993) 42 FCR 188 at 192; Koninklijke Philips v Remington (1999) 91 FCR 167 at 206; Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1228; Twentieth Century Fox v S A Brewery (1996) 66 FCR 451 and Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 518.…
Simplot Australia Pty Limited v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 518 Para 32

…stributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1228; Twentieth Century Fox v S A Brewery (1996) 66 FCR 451 and Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 518.…
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd
[1999] FCA 816 Para 32

…levant members of the public is not unusual in this court: see R & C Products v S C Johnson (1993) 42 FCR 188 at 192; Koninklijke Philips v Remington (1999) 91 FCR 167 at 206; Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1228; Twentieth Century Fox v S A Brewery (1996) 66 FCR 451 and Simpl…
Queensland v JL holdings Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 1 Para 5

…ey must not be so detailed as to confuse or obscure the nature of the case. As pointed out by the High Court in Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Limited (1997) 189 CLR 146, the ultimate purpose of the pleading is the attainment of justice and this is the paramount consideration for the Court, which must ensure that any…
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v The South Australian Brewery Co Ltd
[1996] FCA 365 Para 32

…Remington (1999) 91 FCR 167 at 206; Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd v Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1228; Twentieth Century Fox v S A Brewery (1996) 66 FCR 451 and Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 518.…
Commonwealth v Verwayen
[1990] HCA 39 Para 7

…In The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394, at 456, Dawson J said: “The considerations which govern a decision to grant or refuse leave to amend are of a different kind from those which go to establish an estoppel. The rules of court have always provided that leave to amend pleadings may be given for the purpo…
Dare v Pulham
[1982] HCA 70 Para 5

…rties in advance of the case which they have to meet so as to enable them to take the necessary steps to deal with the allegations: see Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664. The material particulars must be sufficiently clear and detailed to convey to the party the case which has to be met. However they must not b…
Gordon v Macgregor
[1909] HCA 26 Para 19

…In Gordon v MacGregor (1909) 8 CLR 316, at 321, Griffiths CJ noted that: “…it is a very dangerous thing after the close of the evidence to allow an amendment to raise a point founded on some oral statement by a witness, which may be perfectly complete so far as it is relevant to the issues which are being tried, bu…
The Commonwealth v Verwayen
79 ER 738 Para 7

…In The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394, at 456, Dawson J said: “The considerations which govern a decision to grant or refuse leave to amend are of a different kind from those which go to establish an estoppel. The rules of court have always provided that leave to amend pleadings may be given for the purpose of determinin…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 637 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK (for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim) APPLICANT
AND:	CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 692 443) FIRST RESPONDENT CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 352 104) SECOND RESPONDENT CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 512 385) THIRD RESPONDENT KERROD GRANT PARK FOURTH RESPONDENT OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (ABN 073 598 035) FIFTH RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER COOTE SIXTH RESPONDENT PHILLIP EMANUEL PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (ACN 002 693 512) SEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY