Westpac Banking Corporation v Makhoul

Westpac Banking Corporation initiated proceedings against Joseph Makhoul in the Federal Circuit Court, seeking recovery of a debt. Makhoul opposed the claim and subsequently amended his defence. The bank applied for the costs of the defence to be disregarded on the basis that the amendment rendered it futile. The court was required to determine whether the amendment of the defence was justified, and if so, whether the costs incurred by the bank should be disregarded.

The court considered the principles governing the amendment of pleadings and the circumstances surrounding the amendment in this case. It found that the amendment was justified as it addressed a significant issue that had not been previously considered. The court concluded that the amendment did not render the defence futile and that the costs incurred by the bank were not to be disregarded. The bank's application for costs was dismissed.

The court emphasised that the amendment of the defence was appropriate in the circumstances, and the bank's costs were not to be disregarded. The court noted that there was no question of principle involved, and the amendment did not result in a futile defence. The case serves as a reminder that amendments to pleadings can be justified if they address significant issues that were not previously considered. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that amendments to pleadings are appropriate and justified in the circumstances.