Thynne v Jevny Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Thynne v Jevny Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute concerning the real property inherited by the plaintiff from the deceased testator. The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim in light of the Court of Appeal's determination that she did not hold a present beneficial interest in the real property. The second defendant, in response, sought summary dismissal and striking out of specific prayers for relief and associated pleadings and particulars, which were contingent on the plaintiff having a present trust interest over part of the real property. Additionally, the second defendant applied to set aside a subpoena issued by the plaintiff to a bank, although this application was ultimately not pursued by the defendant.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's proposed amendments to her statement of claim adequately addressed the deficiencies identified by the Court of Appeal. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff's claims for relief and associated pleadings and particulars, which relied on the existence of a present trust interest, could be maintained. Furthermore, the court had to consider the second defendant's application to set aside the subpoena issued by the plaintiff.

The court held that the proposed amendments to the statement of claim did not address the substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's claim to have an existing beneficial interest in the real property. The court ruled that there was no basis for imposing a trust interest in equity and, therefore, denied the plaintiff leave to amend her statement of claim. Consequently, the court made orders summarily dismissing the prayers for relief that depended on the existence of a present trust interest. The court also struck out the plaintiff's allegations regarding the real property and her restatement of her entitlement to the relief claimed. Additionally, the court refused the plaintiff leave to amend the pleadings and particulars that were struck out or summarily dismissed. The application to set aside the subpoena was not pursued by the second defendant, and thus, the court did not need to rule on it.

In conclusion, the court refused the plaintiff leave to amend her statement of claim, summarily dismissed certain prayers for relief, and struck out specific allegations and restatements regarding the real property. The application to set aside the subpoena was not proceeded with by the second defendant.