Kochergen, Jacob Jack & Anor v Bell, Geoffrey York & Ors Bell, Geoffrey York & Ors v Kochergen, Jacob Jack & Ors [1998] FCA 1204

Kochergen, Jacob Jack & Anor v Bell, Geoffrey York & Ors Bell, Geoffrey York & Ors v Kochergen, Jacob Jack & Ors [1998] FCA 1204

The fifth and sixth respondents were granted leave only to amend their response to paragraph 1 of the further amended statement of claim because the broader proposed amendments would withdraw admissions and factual allegations without any shown basis that the existing pleaded facts were incorrect, the sixth respondent had the second respondent as a director at all material times, and no real prejudice would be caused by refusing the broader amendments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Amend Defence / Reasons for Decision on the Fifth and Sixth Respondents' Notice of Motion of 27 August 1998
Outcome
Application granted in part; otherwise adjourned with liberty to renew in limited circumstances; costs ordered against the fifth and sixth respondents.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Defence' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'pleadings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Defence' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'pleadings' 'costs']

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

Notice of Motion to Amend Defence / Reasons for Decision on the Fifth and Sixth Respondents' Notice of Motion of 27 August 1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fifth and sixth respondents should be granted leave to amend their defence extensively.' 'Whether the proposed amendments withdrawing admissions and factual allegations should be allowed.' 'What costs order should be made on the notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fifth and sixth respondents were granted leave only to amend their response to paragraph 1 of the further amended statement of claim because the broader proposed amendments would withdraw admissions and factual allegations without any shown basis that the existing pleaded facts were incorrect, the sixth respondent had the second respondent as a director at all material times, and no real prejudice would be caused by refusing the broader amendments.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; otherwise adjourned with liberty to renew in limited circumstances; costs ordered against the fifth and sixth respondents.

Orders

  • ['Leave is given to the fifth and sixth respondents to file and serve an amended defence to the allegation in paragraph 1 of the further amended statement of claim in terms of paragraphs 1 and 1.1 of exhibit CMG1 to the affidavit of Christopher Martin Garrett sworn on 27 August 1998.' 'The application to amend the...