FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Perazzoli v BankSA (No 5) [2018] FCA 1187
Table of Corrections 13 August 2018 On…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Perazzoli v BankSA (No 5) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1187
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the proposed pleadings were not sufficient to justify an amendment in the form presented. The applicants had proposed eight questions said to be common to all group members, only one of which directly concerned the representations made by Mr Samra. The court noted that this was sufficient to distinguish the case from Connell v Nevada. The court also noted that consideration of whether the question concerning the representations was truly a question common to all group members should be deferred until the applicants finalised their pleadings. The court concluded that leave to amend the second amended originating application and second amended statement of claim in the proposed form should be refused.
The court granted leave to the applicants to join Antonietta Perazzoli, Susan Ferluga, and Renato Ferluga as the fourth, fifth, and sixth applicants, respectively, and to disjoin William Johnson as the third applicant. The court also granted leave to the applicants to disjoin Michael Christopher Samra as the second respondent and as trustee of the Michael Christopher Samra Family Trust trading as Adelaide Lending Centre ABN 69 787 153 821 as the third respondent. However, the court refused leave to the applicants to amend the second amended originating application and second amended statement of claim in the proposed form. The applicants were granted liberty to propose amended documents in a different form.
The court ordered that the applicants had leave to join Antonietta Perazzoli, Susan Ferluga, and Renato Ferluga as the fourth, fifth, and sixth applicants, respectively, and to disjoin William Johnson as the third applicant. The court also ordered that the applicants had leave to disjoin Michael Christopher Samra as the second respondent and as trustee of the Michael Christopher Samra Family Trust trading as Adelaide Lending Centre ABN 69 787 153 821 as the third respondent. The court refused leave to the applicants to amend the second amended originating application and second amended statement of claim in the proposed form. The applicants were granted liberty to propose amended documents in a different form.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Applicants have leave to:
(a) join Antonietta Perazzoli, Susan Ferluga and Renato Ferluga as Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Applicants respectively;
(b) disjoin William Johnson as the Third Applicant;
(c) disjoin Michael Christopher Samra as the Second Respondent;
(d) disjoin Michael Christopher Samra as trustee of the Michael Christopher Samra Family Trust trading as Adelaide Lending Centre ABN 69 787 153 821 as the Third Respondent.
2. Leave to the Applicants to amend the Second Amended Originating Application and Second Amended Statement of Claim in the proposed form is refused.
3. There be liberty to the Applicants to propose amendments to the Second Amended Originating Application and Second Amended Statement of Claim in a different form.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.