FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Sita Qld Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2000] FCA 1078 SITA QLD PTY LTD AND HARLINGDALE PTY LTD v STATE OF QUEENSLAND, THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND), SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD AND RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE QG 95 OF 1998 DOWSETT J 30 JUNE 2000 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 95 OF 1998 BETWEEN: SITA QLD PTY LTD FIRST APPLICANT HARLINGDALE PTY LTD SECOND APPLICANT AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND FIRST RESPONDENT THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND THIRD RESPONDENT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND) FOURTH RESPONDENT SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD FIFTH RESPONDENT RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE SIXTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE OF ORDER: 30 JUNE 2000 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application to amend the statement of claim be refused. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 95 OF 1998 BETWEEN: SITA QLD PTY LTD FIRST APPLICANT HARLINGDALE PTY LTD SECOND APPLICANT AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND FIRST RESPONDENT THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND THIRD RESPONDENT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND) FOURTH RESPONDENT SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD FIFTH RESPONDENT RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE SIXTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 30 JUNE 2000 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Application is made at the end of addresses to amend the statement of claim to permit the applicants to rely upon ostensible authority should the Court not be satisfied that the former Minister had actual authority to enter into the alleged contract. Superficially, that issue may appear to be fairly limited in that the applicants seek to rely only upon his position as evidence of ostensible authority, presumably to answer the assertion made on behalf of the State that the former Minister had no actual authority to enter into contracts involving the expenditure of more than one million dollars. 2 The applicants have been aware of this assertion since, at the latest, the beginning of the trial and, I imagine, for some time prior thereto. The application is made at a very late stage. If I were reasonably satisfied that the conduct of the case on behalf of the State would not have been different had the amendment been made timeously, then I would be inclined to allow the amendment. However it is difficult to be so satisfied. The history of dealings between the parties prior to the alleged contract indicates that on at least one occasion, the question of Cabinet approval had been mentioned and it is, I think, likely that had the issue of ostensible authority been a live one during the conduct of the applicants' case, the cross-examination of the applicants' witnesses as to their knowledge of this matter and otherwise as to their knowledge of such limitation may well have been conducted differently. 3 In those circumstances I consider that the application is made too late and that I cannot be satisfied that the respondent will not be prejudiced by it. The application is refused. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 18 August 2000 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr N Lucarelli QC Mr M Conrick Solicitor for the Applicants: Freehills Counsel for the First, Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr R V Hanson QC Mr P Flanagan Solicitor for the First, Third and FourthRespondents: Crown Law Date of Hearing: 30 June 2000 Date of Judgment: 30 June 2000