NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Intagro Projects Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1054 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/10/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 November 2004
JUDGMENT OF : White J DECISION : Refuse leave to the cross-claimant to file an amended cross-claim which includes paragraph 18 of the proposed amended cross-claim; Grant leave to the cross-claimant to file an amended cross-claim in terms of paragraphs 19 to 21 of the proposed amended cross-claim with the insertion of the words "of care and diligence" after the word "obligations" in paragraph 1; Costs of the application for leave to amend should be costs in the cause.
CATCHWORDS : PLEADING - Leave to amend - Proposed claim against directors of trustee company under Corporations Act, s 197 - Whether arguable that trust deed limited the trust assets to which trustee could have recourse to satisfy right of indemnity - Whether arguable that trustee not entitled to be fully indemnified out of trust assets if it acted in breach of trust - Construction of express indemnity of trustee acting in good faith - Court not to resolve arguable questions on application for leave to amend. LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Hanel v O'Neill (2003) 48 ACSR 378 Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Buckle (1998) 192 CLR 226 Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360 Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 RWG Management Limited v Commissioner for Corporate Affairs [1985] VR 385 CASES CITED : Ecclesiastical Commissioners v Pinney [1900] 2 Ch 736 Gatsios Holdings Pty Ltd v Nick Kritharas Holdings (in Liq) (2002) ATPR 41-864 Nolan v Collie (2003) 7 VR 287 McLean v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 623 Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241 Walker v Stones [2001] QB 902 Darlington Futures v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited PARTIES : v Intagro Projects Pty Limited & Ors FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50165/03 COUNSEL : Applicant: Mr S Rares SC Respondent: Mr D Hammerschlag SC & Mr L Gyles SOLICITORS : Applicant: Minter Ellison Lawyers Respondent: Holding Redlich
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