In the matter of Joe & Joe Developments Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1984

In the matter of Joe & Joe Developments Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1984

Leave to amend was granted in part because most challenged amendments were permissible in context: paragraphs 51A and 51B were adequately understood with the preceding pleaded facts; allegations of apparently excessive invoices and of a fair and reasonable amount of about $127,000 plus GST were sufficiently particularised; and paragraph 74Q properly pleaded a statutory conclusion from preceding facts. However, allegations that expenditure was not controlled in paragraphs 74J(c) and 74P(c) were vague and added nothing in the context, so those subparagraphs were not allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaratory Relief Under (cth) Corporations Act 2001 S 447 E / Interlocutory Application to Amend Points of Claim
Outcome
Application granted in part.
Legal Topics
['declaratory Relief Under (cth) Corporations Act 2001 S 447 E' 'leave to Amend Points of Claim' 'pleading Objections' 'deed of Company Arrangement']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['declaratory Relief Under (cth) Corporations Act 2001 S 447 E' 'leave to Amend Points of Claim' 'pleading Objections' 'deed of Company Arrangement']

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

Application for Declaratory Relief Under (cth) Corporations Act 2001 S 447 E / Interlocutory Application to Amend Points of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their points of claim in the form proposed.' 'Whether proposed paragraphs 51A and 51B were objectionable for insufficient pleading of knowledge, consent or disclosure.' 'Whether allegations that legal invoices were apparently excessive and called for scrutiny were permissible pleading.' 'Whether allegations that fair and reasonable legal fees were about $127,000 plus GST were sufficiently particularised.' 'Whether allegations that the defendants paid invoices without caring or without controlling expenditure were vague, embarrassing or liable to be struck out.' 'Whether paragraph 74Q properly pleaded a statutory conclusion supported by preceding material facts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted in part because most challenged amendments were permissible in context: paragraphs 51A and 51B were adequately understood with the preceding pleaded facts; allegations of apparently excessive invoices and of a fair and reasonable amount of about $127,000 plus GST were sufficiently particularised; and paragraph 74Q properly pleaded a statutory conclusion from preceding facts. However, allegations that expenditure was not controlled in paragraphs 74J(c) and 74P(c) were vague and added nothing in the context, so those subparagraphs were not allowed.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiffs to amend their points of claim by filing amended points of claim in the form attached to the interlocutory process and marked A, subject to the omission of paragraphs 74J(c) and 74P(c).' 'Direct that the defendants serve their defence to the amended points of claim within 21 days.'...