Lakatoi Universal Pty Ltd v LA Walker [2000] NSWSC 560

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Lakatoi Universal Pty Ltd v LA Walker [2000] NSWSC 560 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50035/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 13/06/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 June 2000

PARTIES : Lakatoi Universal Pty Ltd & Ors v Langley Alexander Walker & Ors JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J

VRW Gray (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : BR McClintock SC, R Hollo (Mr Walker) P Kerr (Walker Consolidated) RJ Powell (Remaining Defendants) Gye Associates (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Minter Ellison (Mr Walker) Allen Allen & Hemsley (Walker Consolidated) Perkes & Stone (Remaining Defendants) Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 Beocco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] QB 137 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 16 CLR 1 CASES CITED : Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107 Vanderpitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Corporation of New York [1993] AC West v Houghton (1879) LR 4 CPD 197 DECISION : Oral application dismissed.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION - COMMERCIAL LIST

EINSTEIN J

Wednesday 21 June 2000

50035/98 LAKATOI UNIVERSAL PTY LTD & ORS V LANGLEY ALEXANDER WALKER AND ORS.

JUDGMENT on the application to revisit the 1 June Judgment

Background to the 1 June 2000 judgment 1 An ex tempore Judgment was delivered in these proceedings on 1 June 2000 ["the June judgment"]. It was the fourth judgment delivered in a sequence of judgments generally explained in the first section of the June judgment. 2 The occasion for the delivery of the June judgment followed the giving of detailed submissions by Mr McClintock SC for Mr Walker on a number of issues. The issues are generally outlined in the June judgment. The submissions advanced by Mr McClintock extended to cover the assertion that the plaintiffs had never put their case on bases which were the subject of findings in the principal judgment delivered on 10 March 2000. They included a submission that the plaintiffs had never put the case on the basis found in the March judgment at paragraph 1443. They included a submission that practically speaking the plaintiff during the proceedings had abandoned any claim for damages against Mr Hogarth. Mr McClintock's submissions included a detailed examination as to the approach taken by Mr Walker during earlier submissions and covered close questions of the manner in which the proceedings had been pleaded. 3 During the course of the submissions leading to the judgment an application was made by the plaintiffs for leave to further amend the fourth amended summons. Submissions were addressed to the Court by Mr Gray on behalf of the plaintiffs and by Mr McClintock in relation to this application. Mr Kerr, solicitor, appearing on this occasion for Walker Consolidated, opposed the application for leave to amend. Mr Powell of counsel appearing on this occasion for all defendants otherwise than Mr Walker and Walker Consolidated, also opposed the application for leave to amend. 4 The application for leave to amend was put as desirable, but not essential. The matter was put as regularizing the way in which the proceedings had been litigated as reflected in the findings in the March judgment. 5 The complex of matters raised by Mr McClintock SC in terms of the submissions as to findings in the March judgment said not to reflect the manner in which the proceedings had been litigated, submissions as to the submissions which had been advanced to the court during the proceedings proper, submissions as to the pleadings, submissions as to the reasons why Mr Walker had not taken the points now sought to be taken much earlier and submissions as to the agency and trust issues [dealt with and explained in the June judgment], meant that the June judgment covered a number of interrelated areas. It was necessary that those areas be examined so as to set the ground for an examination of both the application for leave to amend the fourth amended summons as well as to permit the substance of the matter to be dealt with.