Prentice v Cummins - [2002] FCA 1165

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1165
BANKRUPTCY – application to amend pleadings in case brought by trustee in bankruptcy against third party to seek relief against bankrupt – whether application should be granted.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 77, 81, 255(2)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1072C
Corporations Law, s 1091A
Financial Services Reform Act 2001 (Cth), s 3, Sched 1
Federal Court Rules (“FCR”), O 6 r 9
Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1140, referred to.
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410, cited.
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE & ANOR (together the Trustees of the property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt) v JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS & ORS
N 7481 of 2001
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
19 SEPTEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7481 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
FIRST APPLICANT

MARK JULIAN ROBINSON
SECOND APPLICANT
(together the Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt)

AND:

JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MARY ELIZABETH CUMMINS
SECOND RESPONDENT

AYMCOPIC PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

HOSPITALITY HIRE PTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 SEPTEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The motion filed by the applicants on 13 September 2002 (“the motion to amend”) be dismissed.

Pursuant to Federal Court Rules, O 6 r 9, the first respondent cease to be a party to the proceedings.

The applicants pay the second, third and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion filed by the second, third and fourth respondents on 9 September 2002.

The applicants pay the second, third and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion to amend.

The applicants pay the costs incurred in the proceedings by the first respondent on and after 13 September 2002.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7481 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
FIRST APPLICANT

MARK JULIAN ROBINSON
SECOND APPLICANT
(together the Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt)

AND:

JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MARY ELIZABETH CUMMINS
SECOND RESPONDENT

AYMCOPIC PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

HOSPITALITY HIRE PTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

19 SEPTEMBER 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In a judgment delivered on 13 September 2002, I stood over the motion by the second to fourth respondents (“the Cummins parties”) seeking an order that the first respondent (“the Bankrupt”) cease to be a party to the proceedings: Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1140 (the “first judgment”). I indicated in the judgment that, but for one matter raised by Mr Coles, senior counsel for the applicants (“the Trustees”), I would have granted the relief sought by the Cummins parties in the motion. I expressed the view that the Bankrupt should cease to be a party because, on the existing pleadings, he had been “unnecessarily joined” to the proceedings,…

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 Prentice v Cummins

Details

AGLC: Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1165
Case: [2002] FCA 1165
Decision Date: 19 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prentice v Cummins involved a dispute between several parties, the central issue being whether the applicants were permitted to amend their statement of claim. The applicants sought to amend their claims against the respondents to include additional causes of action. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants argued that they should be allowed to amend their statement of claim to include additional causes of action against the respondents. The respondents opposed the application, asserting that the applicants were attempting to add new claims outside the scope of the original proceedings and that such amendments would cause undue delay and prejudice to the respondents.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants were permitted to amend their statement of claim and, if so, under what circumstances such amendments would be allowed. The court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the general law regarding amendments to pleadings. It examined whether the proposed amendments related back to the original cause of action, whether they would cause undue delay or prejudice to the respondents, and whether there were any other factors that should be taken into account. The court also considered the applicants' conduct and whether they had acted in good faith.

The court found that the applicants were not permitted to amend their statement of claim. It held that the proposed amendments would introduce new causes of action that were not contemplated by the original proceedings and would result in undue delay and prejudice to the respondents. The court held that the applicants had not acted in good faith and had delayed in bringing the motion to amend. As a result, the motion to amend was dismissed, and the first respondent was removed as a party to the proceedings. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the motion filed by the second, third and fourth respondents, the costs of the motion to amend, and the costs incurred by the first respondent on and after 13 September 2002.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion filed by the applicants on 13 September 2002 (“the motion to amend”) be dismissed.

2. Pursuant to Federal Court Rules, O 6 r 9, the first respondent cease to be a party to the proceedings.

3. The applicants pay the second, third and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion filed by the second, third and fourth respondents on 9 September 2002.

4. The applicants pay the second, third and fourth respondents’ costs of the motion to amend.

5. The applicants pay the costs incurred in the proceedings by the first respondent on and after 13 September 2002.

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

SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7481 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE FIRST APPLICANT MARK JULIAN ROBINSON SECOND APPLICANT (together the Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt)
AND:	JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS FIRST RESPONDENT MARY ELIZABETH CUMMINS SECOND RESPONDENT AYMCOPIC PTY LIMITED THIRD RESPONDENT HOSPITALITY HIRE PTY LIMITED FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 SEPTEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	19 SEPTEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY