CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 2) [2010] FCA 1364

CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 2) [2010] FCA 1364

The Court held that the amendments proposed by the respondents do not cause the kind of prejudice alleged by the applicants, are not inconsistent with the respondents' case, and are allowed. Leave is given for the amendments, and the Further Amended Defence and Set-Off is to be filed and served by the specified date.

Parties
First Applicant: CMA Corporation Limited (ACN 113 329 016); Second Applicant: CMA Recycling Pty Limited (ACN 107 209 503); Third Applicant: CMA Recycling Victoria Pty Limited (ACN 005 667 103); First Respondent: Douglas Trevor Rowe; Second Respondent: WMR Investments Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Defence / Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Set Off
Outcome
Leave to amend Defence and Set-Off granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Section 208 Corporations Act, Leave to Amend Defence, Financial Benefit to Related Parties
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Section 208 Corporations Act Leave to Amend Defence Financial Benefit to Related Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CMA Corporation Limited (ACN 113 329 016)

First Applicant

CMA Recycling Pty Limited (ACN 107 209 503)

Second Applicant

CMA Recycling Victoria Pty Limited (ACN 005 667 103)

Third Applicant

Douglas Trevor Rowe

First Respondent

WMR Investments Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Defence / Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Set Off

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to respondents to amend their Defence and Set-Off
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments would cause irremediable prejudice or are inconsistent with existing evidence
  3. 3 Whether amendments justify further enquiry or cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the amendments proposed by the respondents do not cause the kind of prejudice alleged by the applicants, are not inconsistent with the respondents' case, and are allowed. Leave is given for the amendments, and the Further Amended Defence and Set-Off is to be filed and served by the specified date.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend Defence and Set-Off granted

Orders

  • Marks as MFI4 the document styled Further Amended Defence and Set-Off initialled by Foster J and placed in the Court file.
  • Grants leave to the respondents to amend their Defence in accordance with the draft Further Amended Defence and Set-Off which is MFI4.