Sigley and De Santis & Ors (No 5)

Case [2020] FamCA 968


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SIGLEY & DE SANTIS AND ORS (NO. 5) [2020] FamCA 968

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applicant further amending statement of claim – leave sought – 12 day trial consumed arguing pleading amendments.

SHAM TRANSACTIONS – review of applicable case law.

Corporations Act2001 (Cth), ss 491, 494, 496, 541, 601AD, 601AH
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 79, 80, 85, 87(11), 90SS, 90UN, 106B, 114, 117
Family Law Amendment Act 2000 (Cth), sch 3
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 19.10

AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] 1 AC 417
ANZ Banking Group v Harper (1988) 11 Fam LR 649
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
Australian Security Estates Pty Ltd v Bluecrest Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (2002) 169 FLR 111
Barendse v Comptroller-General of Customs (1996) 136 FLR 243
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Chen & Chen (No 3) [2020] FamCA 744
Clutha Ltd (in liq) v Millar (No 5) (2002) 43 ACSR 295
Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Harvey [1980] VR 669
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Cranstoun v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 75 FLR 220
Cresvale Far East Ltd (in liq) v Cresvale Securities Ltd (No 2) (2001) 39 ACSR 622
East-West Airlines v Commonwealth (1983) 57 ALJR 783
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471
Fisher v Fisher (1986) 161 CLR 438
Gibbons v LibertyOne Ltd (in liq) (2002) 41 ACSR 442
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Hadjiloucas v Crean [1987] 3 All ER 1008
In the Marriage of Bassola (No 2) (1985) 10 Fam LR 413
In the Marriage of Collins (1987) 11 Fam LR 382
In the Marriage of Davidson (1994) 17 Fam LR 656
In the Marriage of Gould (1993) 17 Fam LR 156
In the Marriage of Hudson (1986) 11 Fam LR 189
In the Marriage of Turnbull (1990) 15 Fam LR 81
In the Marriage of Whitaker (1980) 5 Fam LR 769
In the Marriage of Wilson (1989) 13 Fam LR 205
L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
Lewis v Condon (2013) 85 NSWLR 99
Munnings v Australian Government Solicitor (1994) 68 ALJR 169
Munnings v Australian Government Solicitor (No 2) (1994) 68 ALJR 429
National Westminster Bank plc v Jones [2001] 1 BCLC 98
Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Bligh (1940) 41 SR (NSW) 33
R v Ross-Jones; ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185
Raftland Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2008) 238 CLR 516
Re Bassi and KD Sales Force Specialists Pty Ltd (1999) 25 Fam LR 678
Re La Rosa; Ex parte Norgard v Rocom Pty Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 270
Re TH Knitwear (Wholesale) Ltd [1988] Ch 275
Robinson v Harman [1848]…

Continue reading Sigley and De Santis & Ors (No 5)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sigley and De Santis & Ors (No 5) [2020] FamCA 968
Case
[2020] FamCA 968
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sigley and De Santis & Ors (No 5)*, Justice Wilson of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the applicant for leave to further amend their statement of claim. The dispute involved complex issues, including allegations of sham transactions, and the court noted that a significant portion of a previously scheduled 12-day trial had been dedicated to arguing pleading amendments.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant leave to amend their statement of claim, and if so, on what terms. This required the court to consider the principles governing amendments to pleadings, particularly in the context of ongoing litigation where substantial time and resources had already been expended. The court also had to assess the impact of any proposed amendments on the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings, given the advanced stage of the trial.

Justice Wilson allowed the amendments, indicating that the court's discretion to permit amendments is broad, provided they do not cause prejudice to the other parties that cannot be adequately compensated by costs or an adjournment. The court directed the applicant to file and serve full particulars of loss and damage by a specified date and ordered the parties to confer and formulate a minute of agreed orders to facilitate the further progression of the proceeding. The trial was subsequently fixed for an additional 18 days, commencing on 20 September 2021, and the matter was adjourned for mention.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The trial of this proceeding is fixed part heard for an additional 18 days commencing on 20 September 2021.

2.

On or before 4pm on 22 March 2021 the applicant must file and serve full particulars of loss and damage properly itemised.

3.

I allow the amendments in the terms recorded in these reasons.

4.

I direct that by 4pm on 27 November 2020 the parties confer and formulate a minute of agreed orders pursuant to which this proceeding will progress further.

5.

I adjourn the further hearing of this proceeding for mention at 9:30am on 2 December 2020.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.