Paul v Citigroup Pty Ltd - [2010] WADC 65

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: PAUL -v- CITIGROUP PTY LTD & ORS [2010] WADC 65

CORAM: PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING

HEARD: 21 APRIL 2010

DELIVERED : Delivered Extemporaneously on 21 APRIL 2010 typed from tape and edited by Principal Registrar

FILE NO/S: CIV 1405 of 2008

BETWEEN: LILA PAUL
Plaintiff
AND
CITIGROUP PTY LTD (ACN 004 325 080)
Defendant
OLIVE BANUMATHI PAUL
First Third Party
FRANCIS MIRANDAH
Second Third Party

Catchwords:

Pleadings - Late application to amend

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to amend granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J A Robertson
Defendant:     Mr C S Gough
First Third Party           :     Mr B H Taylor
Second Third Party       :     Mr B H Taylor

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Williams & Hughes
Defendant:     Minter Ellison
First Third Party           :     Talbot & Olivier
Second Third Party       :     Talbot & Olivier

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd v Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd No 5 (1997) 18 WAR 334
Paul v Citigroup & Ors [2010] WADC 4
Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Vandenbergh [2009] WASCA 156
State of Queensland v J L Holdings (1997) 189 CLR 146
Stone James (a firm) v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 233
Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 323
Wiltrading (WA) Pty Ltd v Lumley General Insurance Ltd (2005) 30 WAR 290

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING: The application before me is pursuant to a chamber summons filed on 9 April 2010 by the defendant seeking leave to amend the defence and the statement of claim in the third party proceedings.
In relation to the amended defence, the relevant minute is that dated 21 April 2010. In relation to the third party proceedings, the relevant minute is that dated 30 March 2010. In an earlier decision reported as Paul v Citigroup & Ors [2010] WADC 4, I set out the factual background to the action, and I adopt that for present purposes and do not propose to repeat it.
I deal first with the application for leave to amend the defence. The plaintiff raises, essentially, three grounds of objection to the amendments. The first is pleadings related amendments in terms of breaches of technical rules; the second is an assertion that part of the amendments do not disclose a reasonable cause of action; and the third is the general discretionary considerations in light of the High Court's decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175.
Dealing with the technical pleading issues, as the argument progressed, the plaintiff's objections seemed to coalesce into requests for further particulars of certain of the paragraphs, namely:
(a)that the defendant provide complete particulars to par 2(c);
(b)in relation to proposed par 10(h), the defendant provide particulars as to the specific form of the request made by Mr Miranda;
(c)in relation to proposed par 10(j), the defendant specify…

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 Paul v Citigroup Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Paul v Citigroup Pty Ltd [2010] WADC 65
Case: [2010] WADC 65
Decision Date: 21 APRIL 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Paul, the plaintiff, and Citigroup Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to amend his pleadings after the defendant had raised an objection to the sufficiency of the original pleadings. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought leave to amend his pleadings to include additional particulars regarding the circumstances of his claim. The defendant opposed the application on the basis that it was made late and would cause substantial injustice to the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings was made within a reasonable time and whether granting the application would cause substantial injustice to the defendant. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law in determining whether to grant the application. The court also had to weigh the interests of justice in deciding whether to allow the amendment.

The court held that the plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings was made within a reasonable time and that granting the application would not cause substantial injustice to the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had a good arguable case and that the additional particulars sought to be added were relevant and necessary to the plaintiff's claim. The court also noted that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the delay in making the application. The court granted the plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings.

No final orders have been made in this case as the matter is still ongoing. The court's decision to allow the amendment of the pleadings is a significant step in the proceedings, and it remains to be seen how the case will progress with the amended pleadings in place.

Orders