Paycorp Payment Solutions & Anor v Peter Singyin Chai & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1290

Paycorp Payment Solutions & Anor v Peter Singyin Chai & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1290

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed illegality and unclean hands defences had poor prospects of success, there was insufficient explanation for why they were not raised earlier despite available correspondence and affidavit material, and permitting the amendment at the close of the plaintiff's case would occasion prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List; Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion to Amend Defence / Defendants' Application for Leave to Amend Defence at the Close of the Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Defence' 'illegality' 'unclean Hands' 'fiduciary Duties' 'resulting Trust' 'discretion to Grant Leave to Amend']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity' 'trusts' 'corporations'] ['amendment of Defence' 'illegality' 'unclean Hands' 'fiduciary Duties' 'resulting Trust' 'discretion to Grant Leave to Amend']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Commercial List; Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion to Amend Defence / Defendants' Application for Leave to Amend Defence at the Close of the Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should be granted leave at the close of the plaintiff's case to amend their defence to propound defences of illegality and unclean hands." 'Whether the proposed illegality or unclean hands defences had sufficient prospects of success where the alleged impropriety was that the trust was constituted to facilitate a breach of fiduciary duty by Mr Caliguri.' 'Whether the lateness of the application, the explanation for delay, and prejudice to the plaintiffs justified refusing leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed illegality and unclean hands defences had poor prospects of success, there was insufficient explanation for why they were not raised earlier despite available correspondence and affidavit material, and permitting the amendment at the close of the plaintiff's case would occasion prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to amend is declined.' 'The motion is dismissed with costs.']