Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited (No 3) [2004] FCA 807

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited (No 3) [2004] FCA 807

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Federal Court Rules O 13 r 2 – applicant seeks leave to amend pleadings – respondents argue it would add new claims that might otherwise be subject to limitation by statute – whether the effect of the proposed amendments is to add a new claim for relief, or other legal foundation for a claim for relief, that 'arises out of substantially the same facts as those already pleaded' – whether it is just to grant leave to make the amendments notwithstanding the expiration of any relevant limitation period Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33ZE, 59 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 74B, 74D Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 79, 80 Federal Court Rules O 13 r 2 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 18A

John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 cited Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 cited Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491 cited Dyno Wesfarmers Ltd v Knuckey [2003] NSWCA 375 cited Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394 cited Rodgers v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 88 FCR 61 discussed Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield (2003) 7 VR 63 cited Bradshaw v Hair Transplant Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 1 cited Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 cited In re Burford; Burford v Clifford [1932] 2 Ch 122 cited Chatsworth Investments Ltd v Amoco (UK) Ltd [1968] 1 Ch 665 cited Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1997) 186 CLR 541, at 551 cited Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 251 cited PATRICK NOEL DARCY in a representative capacity on behalf of the persons referred to in par 1 of the Amended Statement of Claim v MEDTEL PTY LIMITED & ANOR N 932 of 2001 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 25 JUNE 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA