Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 815

BANKRUPTCY – claims of negligence against trustee – whether claims should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – whether claims previously vested in trustee – whether claims should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules O 7 r 1, O 20 r 2(1)

Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 458 referred to
Faulkner v Bluett (1981) 52 FLR 109 cited
Re Dosanjh (1995) 56 FCR 521 cited
Daemar v Industrial Commission of New South Wales (1988) 12 NSWLR 55 – 56 cited
Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 referred to
Watson v Healey (1996) 64 FCR 301 cited
Bellin v Pattison (as Trustee) [1999] FCA 51 cited
Re Gault; Gault v Law (1982) 57 FLR 165 referred to
Re Cheesman; Cheesman v Waters (1997) 143 ALR 78 cited
Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Todd (1986) 70 ALR 119 cited
National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Reynolds [2000] FCA 267 referred to
Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Limited [1968] 2 QB 229 applied
cf Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 cited
Birkett v James [1978] AC 297 cited
Lewandowski & Ors v Lovell (1994) 11 WAR 124 cited
cf Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim (1999) 2 QDR 113 cited

ANTHONY CHARLES PRIDMORE, HANS LOTHAR WITTE, MARINA PRIDMORE and RENATE WITTE v MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD and HALL CHADWICK
W 164 of 1998

RD NICHOLSON J
29 JUNE 2001
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 164 of 1998

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY CHARLES PRIDMORE
FIRST APPLICANT

HANS LOTHAR WITTE
SECOND APPLICANT

MARINA PRIDMORE
THIRD APPLICANT

RENATE WITTE
FOURTH APPLICANT

AND:

MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD
(ACN 009 340 158)
FIRST RESPONDENT

HALL CHADWICK
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

RD NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The second respondent’s motions filed on 27 April 2001 and 9 May 2001 be granted.

2.        The application against the second respondent be dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the costs on the application, the motions referred to in order  1 and all reserved costs, to be taxed of:

(a)Messrs Rowe and Evans of the second respondent;

(b)Messrs Williamson, Posma and Lyford of the second respondent;

subject to the right of the applicant to contend before the taxing officer that it was not necessary for there to be separate representation for members of the second  respondent.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 164 of 1998

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY CHARLES PRIDMORE
FIRST APPLICANT

HANS LOTHAR WITTE
SECOND APPLICANT

MARINA PRIDMORE
THIRD APPLICANT

RENATE WITTE
FOURTH APPLICANT

AND:

MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD
(ACN 009 340 158)
FIRST RESPONDENT

HALL CHADWICK
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

RD NICHOLSON J

DATE:

29 JUNE 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd 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
[2001] FCA 815
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd, the dispute involved the applicants seeking to dismiss a proceeding due to alleged want of prosecution and seeking amendments to the pleadings. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which needed to decide on several motions filed by the parties. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the second respondents, Williamson, Posma, and Lyford, should be granted leave to amend their notice of motion to include a new ground that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and whether the motions should be allowed on this ground. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the application against the second respondent should be dismissed and who should bear the costs of the application.

The court found that the ground for dismissal due to want of prosecution could not be made out, but it acknowledged that the situation was close. The court reasoned that the second respondents should be granted leave to amend their notice of motion to include the ground that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action. It held that each of the second respondents' motions should be allowed on this ground, and the application against the second respondent should be dismissed. The court ordered that the applicants were to pay the second respondents' costs of the application, the motions, and all reserved costs, subject to the applicants' right to contest the necessity of separate representation for the members of the second respondent before the taxing officer.

The final orders of the court were that the second respondents' motions filed on April 27, 2001, and May 9, 2001, were to be granted. The application against the second respondent was to be dismissed, and the applicants were to pay the costs associated with the application, the motions, and all reserved costs to be taxed, with a specific mention of the second respondents' legal representatives. This decision ensured clarity on the procedural aspects of the case and directed the parties on the financial responsibilities moving forward.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second respondent’s motions filed on 27 April 2001 and 9 May 2001 be granted.

2. The application against the second respondent be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the costs on the application, the motions referred to in order 1 and all reserved costs, to be taxed of:

(a) Messrs Rowe and Evans of the second respondent;

(b) Messrs Williamson, Posma and Lyford of the second respondent;

subject to the right of the applicant to contend before the taxing officer that it was not necessary for there to be separate representation for members of the second respondent.

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

Therefore, I do not consider that the ground seeking dismissal for want of prosecution can be made out, although it may be close to doing so. CONCLUSION For the above reasons I consider that the motions should be resolved as follows:(1)The second respondents Williamson, Posma and Lyford should have leave to apply to amend their notice of motion to include reliance on the ground in FCR O 20 r 2(1) that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action. (2)Each of the second respondent’s motions should be allowed on the ground reliant on FCR O 20 r 2(1).(3)The application should be dismissed against the second respondent.(4)The applicants are to pay the second respondent’s costs of the application, of the notices of motion and all reserved costs, to be taxed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.