Tada Constructions Corporation Pty Ltd v JP Dixon Real Estate Pty Ltd (No 3)

The application in this case was brought by JP Dixon Real Estate Pty Ltd against Tada Constructions Corporation Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around the filing of a cross-claim out of time and subsequent amendments to that cross-claim. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether leave should be granted for JP Dixon to file and serve the proposed amended cross-claim. The court also needed to consider whether leave should be granted for JP Dixon to file and serve an amended cross-claim, and if so, what the implications for the trial would be.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the procedural history of the case, the nature of the representations and further representations made by JP Dixon, and the implications of the proposed amendments to the cross-claim. The court found that it was highly desirable to deal with all disputed matters between the parties in the trial fixed to commence on 9 July 2012. While Tada did not oppose the existing cross-claim, it argued that the amendment in relation to the website had the capacity to cause problems. However, the court found that the amendment appeared unlikely to add materially to preparation for trial, pleading or additional discovery, over that which would be necessary for the existing cross-claim in any event.

The court granted leave for JP Dixon to file and serve the cross-claim in the revised form dated 9 March 2012. The court also directed the parties to clarify to the Registrar, at the case management conference scheduled for 3 April 2012, their preliminary views on what trial time the cross-claim is likely to occupy, and what impact the cross-claim will have on preparation for trial.

ORDERS:

1. The respondent be granted leave to file and serve the cross-claim in the revised form dated 9 March 2012.
2. The parties, at the case management conference scheduled for 3 April 2012, clarify to the Registrar:
(a) their preliminary views on what trial time the cross-claim is likely to occupy; and
(b) what impact the cross-claim will have on preparation for trial (including discovery and whether any additional time or other requirement flows from the precise issue of whether there was originally a licence to use the website).