Pizzino v Caratti (No 4)

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pizzino v Caratti (No 4) [2025] FCA 657

File number: WAD 230 of 2023
Judgment of: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 18 June 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - where applicant failed to meet time for filing second further substituted statement of claim - where solicitors for applicant have ceased to act - where issues raised concerning physical and mental health of the applicant - consideration of circumstances in which litigation representative may be required to be appointed - orders made for any application to extend time to file second further substituted statement of claim to be made by specific date - case management hearing adjourned to a date at which respondent may move for orders dismissing proceedings if non-compliance
Cases cited:

AYZ v State of Western Australia (Department of Justice, Corrective Services) (No 2) [2022] FCA 1540

Drummond v Canberra Institute of Technology (No 3) [2022] FCAFC 169; (2022) 294 FCR 346

Neave v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1030

Pizzino v Caratti [2023] FCA 1624

Pizzino v Caratti (No 3) [2024] FCA 1278

Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 16
Date of hearing: 18 June 2025
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr CG Mofflin
Solicitor for the Respondent: Alan Rumsley - Commercial Lawyer

ORDERS

WAD 230 of 2023
BETWEEN:

ALBERTO PIZZINO

Applicant

AND:

ALLEN BRUCE CARATTI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.On or before 12.00 pm on 25 July 2025, the applicant do file and serve any application to extend the time to file a second further substituted statement of claim.

2.The case management hearing be otherwise adjourned until 10.15 am on 30 July 2025 at which time the respondent may move for orders dismissing the proceedings if appropriate steps to progress the proceedings have not been taken by the applicant.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

  1. In September 2023, Mr Alberto Pizzino and his three sisters commenced proceedings in this Court against Mr Allen Caratti.  They concerned dealings that had resulted in the sale by them of a property in Bennett Springs to a company of which Mr Caratti was a director, being West Swan Land Company Pty Ltd (WSLC).  The relevant events are said to have occurred between 2005 and 2012 and to have included the entry into a deed of settlement and release.  It appears to be common ground that an amount of $4 million that was to be paid by WSLC to Mr Pizzino and his sisters in respect of the transfer of the land to WSLC has never been paid, yet WSLC obtained full title to the land.

  2. For some time, the proceedings were conducted for the applicants by Mr Bruce…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pizzino v Caratti (No 4) 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] FCA 657
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pizzino v Caratti (No 4) involved a dispute in which the applicant had failed to meet the required time for filing a second further substituted statement of claim. The matter was before the court due to the applicant's solicitors ceasing to act, and issues concerning the applicant's physical and mental health had been raised. The court was required to consider the circumstances in which a litigation representative might need to be appointed and to decide on the appropriate orders for any application to extend time for filing the statement of claim.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's health issues justified the need for a litigation representative and how to manage the delay in filing the statement of claim. The court held that any application to extend time must be made by a specific date and that the case management hearing would be adjourned to allow the respondent an opportunity to move for orders dismissing the proceedings if the applicant did not take appropriate steps to progress the matter.

The court ordered that the applicant must file and serve any application to extend the time to file a second further substituted statement of claim by 12.00 pm on 25 July 2025. The case management hearing was to be adjourned until 10.15 am on 30 July 2025, at which time the respondent could move for orders dismissing the proceedings if the applicant had not taken appropriate steps to progress the matter. The orders were made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On or before 12.00 pm on 25 July 2025, the applicant do file and serve any application to extend the time to file a second further substituted statement of claim.

2. The case management hearing be otherwise adjourned until 10.15 am on 30 July 2025 at which time the respondent may move for orders dismissing the proceedings if appropriate steps to progress the proceedings have not been taken by the applicant.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.