Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Abdelkodous [2014] NSWSC 633

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Abdelkodous [2014] NSWSC 633 Hearing dates: 21 May 2014 Decision date: 21 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: 1. Leave granted to the Plaintiff to amend the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim by the filing of a Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim in the form annexed to the affidavit of Vanessa Marie Magee sworn 9 May 2014. 2. Plaintiff to file Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim by close of business on 23 May 2014. 3. Fourth Defendant to file any Amended Defence to Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim by 10 June 2014. 4. Any Defences other than by Fourth Defendant to the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim are to be served on the Plaintiff (but not filed) by close of business on 4 June 2014. 5. Plaintiff to serve any further evidence to be relied on by 30 May 2014. 6. Fourth Defendant to serve any further evidence to be relied on by 13 June 2014. 7. Remaining Defendants to serve any proposed further evidence in reply on the Fourth Defendant by 4 June 2014. The Court will decide on 6 June 2014 whether such evidence may be relied upon. 8. First and Second Defendants to serve any proposed cross-claim against the Fourth Defendant and any further evidence to be relied on by 28 May 2014. 9. Fourth Defendant to advise as to consent or otherwise to such proposed cross-claim by 30 May 2014. 10. If not consented to, First and Second Defendants to file a Notice of Motion by 2 June 2014 returnable before Davies J at 2pm on 6 June 2014. 11. Plaintiff and Fourth Defendant to pay any costs thrown away by reason of the amended pleadings. 12. No other order as to the costs of today. 13. Listed for Directions before Davies J at 2pm on 6 June 2014. 14. Liberty to apply on 2 days' notice. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - pleading - late filing of amended defence raising new issues of law - hearing date imminent - whether Defendant should be permitted to be filed - whether Plaintiff should be permitted to plead a further form of the Statement of Claim to answer new Defences - little or no further evidence needed - leave given to both parties - Amended Defence purports to withdraw deemed admissions to numerous paragraphs of Statement of Claim - no explanation for the making of the admissions nor why they were wrongly made - Amended Defence not permitted to withdraw admissions Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd (Plaintiff) John Abdelkodous (First Defendant) Nadia Abdelkodous (Second Defendant) Combined Home Loans Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) Karl Damien (Fourth Defendant) Victor Abdelkodous (Fifth Defendant) George Shad t/as Shad Partners (Sixth Defendant) Peter Pitson t/as Asset Conveyancing Enterprises (Seventh Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A McInerney SC (Plaintiff) A Tibbey (First and Second Defendants) No appearance (Third Defendant) (Wound Up) H Stitt (Fourth Defendant) No appearance (Fifth Defendant - Bankrupt) S Vrtkovski (Sixth Defendant) J Chapman (Seventh Defendant) A Rogers (Registrar-General: Cross-Defendant) - Excused Solicitors: Gadens Lawyers (Plaintiff) P Baker (First and Second Defendants) No appearance (Third Defendant) WKA Legal (Fourth Defendant) No appearance (Fifth Defendant) Gilchrist Connell (Sixth Defendant) Maccallum Lawyers Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant) Solicitor for the Registrar-General (Registrar-General: Cross-Defendant) File Number(s): 2005/268447