Vintage Developments Pty Ltd v GHD Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2006] FCA 1437

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vintage Developments Pty Limited v GHD Pty Limited (No 2) [2006] FCA 1437

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to amend pleadings – capacity of applicant – acts as trustee rather than on its own behalf – leave to amend granted – whether “otherwise order” provision of O 13 r 3A applies – amendment pre-dates expiry of limitation period – application to substitute applicant for incoming trustee pursuant to O 6 r 10(2) and O 6 r 11(1)(d) – substitution or addition of party – interest or liability not yet passed to incoming trustee – leave refused

Federal Court Rules O 6 r 10, O 6 r 11, O 13 r 2, O13 r 3A

Jennings v Credit Corp Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 48 NSWLR 709 cited
Vintage Developments Pty Limited v GHD Pty Limited [2006] FCA 531 cited
Worrell v Westpac Banking Corporation (1994) 51 FCR 304 cited
Yorkshire Regional Health Authority v Fairclough Building Ltd [1996] 1 All ER 519 cited

VINTAGE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 067 567 006) AND ERROL INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 183 277) v GHD PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 488 373), HUNTER VALLEY ESTATES PTY LTD (ACN 010 857 717) AND GRANT HEATON JOHNSTON

NSD 1262 OF 2005

BENNETT J
30 OCTOBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1262 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

VINTAGE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 067 567 006)
First Applicant

ERROL INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 183 277)
Second Applicant

AND:

GHD PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 488 373)
First Respondent / Cross–Claimant

HUNTER VALLEY ESTATES PTY LTD (ACN 010 857 717)
Second Respondent / Cross–Respondent

GRANT HEATON JOHNSTON
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 OCTOBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Leave is granted to the applicants, pursuant to Order 13 rules 2(1), (2) and (6) of the Federal Court Rules, to amend the further amended statement of claim and the application in terms of the draft second further amended statement of claim and the draft further amended application exhibited to the affidavit of Mark Desmond Chapple sworn on 11 September 2006 at pages 1 to 52 of exhibit “MDC-4”.
The costs of the applicants’ notice of motion dated 11 September 2006 are reserved.

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

NSD 1262 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

VINTAGE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 067 567 006)
First Applicant

ERROL INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 183 277)
Second Applicant

AND:

GHD PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 488 373)
First Respondent / Cross–Claimant

HUNTER VALLEY ESTATES PTY LTD (ACN 010 857 717)
Second Respondent / Cross–Respondent

GRANT HEATON JOHNSTON
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE:

30 OCTOBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

At issue in this notice of motion to amend the application and statement of claim is the capacity in which the second applicant brings 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vintage Developments Pty Ltd v GHD Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2006] FCA 1437
Decision Date: 30 OCTOBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vintage Developments Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against GHD Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Federal Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute concerns amendments to a statement of claim and application. The parties were engaged in a legal battle regarding changes to the legal documents that would better reflect the facts and issues at hand. The Federal Court was tasked with deciding whether to grant leave to the plaintiff to amend their statement of claim and application.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff could amend their statement of claim and application, and if such amendments would be permissible under the Federal Court Rules. The court was required to consider the extent of the proposed changes, the timing of the amendments, and whether the amendments would prejudice the defendant or unduly delay the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had a bona fide basis for making the amendments.

The court granted leave to the plaintiff to amend their statement of claim and application. The court found that the proposed amendments were not an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff had a reasonable basis for making the changes. The court noted that the amendments were necessary to accurately reflect the issues in the case, and that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the amendments. The court also found that the amendments were made in a timely manner and would not unduly delay the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is granted to the applicants, pursuant to Order 13 rules 2(1), (2) and (6) of the Federal Court Rules, to amend the further amended statement of claim and the application in terms of the draft second further amended statement of claim and the draft further amended application exhibited to the affidavit of Mark Desmond Chapple sworn on 11 September 2006 at pages 1 to 52 of exhibit “MDC-4”.

The costs of the applicants’ notice of motion dated 11 September 2006 are reserved.

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

BENNETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BENNETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1262 OF 2005

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 OCTOBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1262 OF 2005

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE:	30 OCTOBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY