Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fewin Pty Limited v Prentice [2018] FCA 852 File number: NSD 484 of 2017
Judge: MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment: 8 June 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend statement of claim – where some of the proposed amendments are based on a recent court decision – where some of the proposed amendments relied on factual matters which arose after the commencement of the proceeding – whether respondent would be prejudiced if leave was granted – whether proposed amended statement of claim is embarrassing – whether leave should be granted – application allowed in part. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a stay of this proceeding until costs of an earlier proceeding are paid – where different applicants and different relief is sought in each proceeding – whether current proceeding is brought on the basis of the same, or substantially the same, cause of action on which the earlier proceeding was based – application allowed.
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 134, 177, 178, 179 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 37M Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.51(4), 16.53, 26.15 Insolvency Law Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulation 2016 (Cth) reg 5(2)(p) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 12.4
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 CGU Insurance Ltd v Watson (as trustee of the deed of arrangement in respect of Greaves) [2007] NSWCA 301 Coshott v Barry [2016] FCAFC 173 Coshott v Burke (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 81 Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke (No 3) [2017] FCA 693 Hutchinson v Nominal Defendant (1972) 1 NSWLR 443 McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd [1999] FCA 1639 Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474 Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 148 Pi v Zhou [2017] NSWCA 16 QS Holdings Sarl v Paul's Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1038 Research In Motion Ltd v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 176 FCR 66 Servcorp Ltd v Nuclei Ltd [2011] FCA 1229 University of Sydney v ResMed Limited (No 5) [2012] FCA 232 Young v Thomson [2017] FCAFC 140
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate