Waterproofing Technologies Pty Ltd v Perri

The case of Waterproofing Technologies Pty Ltd v Perri involved an application for leave to amend the statement of claim in a complex commercial dispute involving numerous entities and transactions. The applicants sought to amend their statement of claim to include additional respondents and allegations of dishonest and fraudulent design under the second limb in Barnes v Addy. The respondents opposed the application on various grounds, including the impact on case preparation and the lack of a reasonable basis for the alleged wrongdoing. The court was required to decide whether granting leave to amend the statement of claim would significantly impact case preparation and whether there was a reasonable basis for the additional allegations.

The court granted leave for the applicants to file an amended statement of claim, finding that the proposed amendments would not significantly impact the proper preparation of the case and that there was a reasonable basis to infer that the respondents had engaged in the alleged wrongdoing. The court considered that the additional respondents and allegations were closely related to the existing claims and that the applicants had provided sufficient information to support the proposed amendments. The court also noted that the respondents had not demonstrated that the granting of leave would cause substantial injustice or delay. Additionally, the court allowed an application to set aside notices to produce documents and dismissed an application to discharge or vary freezing orders, finding that there was no good or arguable case or exceptional circumstances to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion.

The court made several orders to facilitate the amended statement of claim and the ongoing proceedings. The applicants were granted leave to file a further amended originating process and an amended statement of claim, and additional respondents were joined to the proceeding. The court also set deadlines for service of the amended documents, discovery of documents, and filing of defences and replies. The court permitted an independent computer expert to search electronic devices and prepare a list of documents identified in accordance with varied permitted searches. The court set deadlines for respondents to identify any documents subject to privilege and to object to access by the applicants to any document identified in the list of things. The court also set deadlines for discovery of documents and further and better particulars of loss and damage and breach of duty. The court set aside notices to produce documents and ordered the parties to attend mediation and a case management hearing. All questions of costs were reserved.