Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Pham [2013] NSWSC 110

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Pham [2013] NSWSC 110 Hearing dates: 26 October 2012 Decision date: 28 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Application to amend refused. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to amend statement of claim - power to allow amendments raising cause of action under federal statute outside limitations period - discretion.

CORPORATIONS - application to amend to seek relief under s 1005(1) for breach of s 999 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) outside period in s 1005(2) - whether Court has power to allow amendment under ss 64 and 65 of the Civil Procedure Act (2005) - discretion - utility of amendments - whether cause of action under s 1005 for breach of s 999 requires investor to have been misled - delay - prejudice - explanation for delay - application to amend claim for relief under s 1325(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - whether amendment futile because right to apply contingent on proceedings otherwise instituted under the Act - power to allow amendment to make application outside period in s 1325(4) - whether making application within period in s 1325(4) an "essence of" or jurisdictional precondition to the right to apply under s 1325(2) - whether amendment should be allowed - delay - prejudice - explanation for delay. Legislation Cited: - Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act (1959) (Cth) - Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 57, 58, 64, 65 - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 601ED(5), 727, 999, 1005, 1317H(1), 1322(4), 1324, 1325, 1326, 1400 - Corporations Bill 1988 (Cth) - Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 (Cth) - Corporations Regulations (Amendment) 1998 - Corporations Legislation Amendment Act 1990 (Cth), Sch 4 - Financial Services Reform Act 2001 (Cth), Sch 1 - Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79 - Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 1986 (Cth) - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 82(2) - Trade Practices Revision Act 1986 (Cth), s 55 Cases Cited: - ACCC v Shell Company of Australia Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 386 - Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield [2005] HCA 38; 223 CLR 251 - Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 251; 58 NSWLR 388 - Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson [2005] HCA 39; 223 CLR 283 - Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 - Austin Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v A & G Scaffolding & Rigging Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC1077 - Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Larcos (1987) 13 NSWLR 286 - Baini v R [2012] HCA 59; 87 ALJR 180 - Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 703; 112 FCR 336 - CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club (1997) 187 CLR 384 - David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265 - Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58; ATPR 46-248 - Fenech v Stirling (1984) 4 FCR 372 - Greater Lithgow City Council v Wolfenden [2007] NSWCA 180 - Gordon v Tolcher [2006] HCA 62; 231 CLR 334 - Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Philip Viet Dzung Pham [2012] NSWSC 645 - Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd [2008] NSWCA 206; 73 NSWLR 653 - Rennie Gollegde Pty Ltd v Ballard [2012] NSWCA 376 - Sent v Jet Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 35; 160 CLR 540 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Plaintiff) Philip Viet Dzung Pham (First Defendant) Nedelkja Borak (Second Defendant) Pham & Associates Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) Pham Atic Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant) Representation: M Ashhurst SC with s Duggan (Plaintiff) D R Pritchard SC with M Newton (First, Fourth & Fifth Defendants) N Maley (Solicitor) (Second Defendant) Swaab Attorneys (Plaintiff) HWL Ebsworth (First, Fourth & Fifth Defendants) Gilchrist Connell (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2002/69495