ACN 000 691 396 v J. F. Peel & Sons Pty Limited [2009] FCA 1416

ACN 000 691 396 v J. F. Peel & Sons Pty Limited [2009] FCA 1416

The interlocutory process filed 10 November 2009 was inadequate and inappropriate to achieve the applicants' desired outcome because the applicants had no standing to participate in NSD 209 of 2009 on its present formulation, were not necessary parties under Order 6, rule 8, and did not qualify for the active role they sought as interveners under Order 6, rule 17. Leave was therefore granted to file and serve an amended interlocutory process, and the applicants were ordered to pay 90% of the first, second and third respondents' costs of the directions hearing because about 90% of the hearing concerned the interlocutory process that was no longer pressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding Involving Company Share Interests and an Interlocutory Process by Applicants to Intervene or Obtain Related Relief / Directions Hearing and Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Leave granted for amended pleadings, affidavits and an amended interlocutory process; time extended for affidavit evidence; applicants ordered to pay 90% of specified respondents' costs; matter stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Parties' 'intervention' 'interlocutory Process' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'affidavit Evidence' 'costs' 'company Oppression and Winding Up Background' 'derivative Proceedings Provisions']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['joinder of Parties' 'intervention' 'interlocutory Process' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'affidavit Evidence' 'costs' 'company Oppression and Winding Up Background' 'derivative Proceedings Provisions']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Civil Proceeding Involving Company Share Interests and an Interlocutory Process by Applicants to Intervene or Obtain Related Relief / Directions Hearing and Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants named in the Interlocutory Process filed 10 November 2009 had standing to participate in proceeding NSD 209 of 2009.' 'Whether the applicants should have been joined under Order 6, rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the applicants qualified as interveners under Order 6, rule 17 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether leave should be granted to file and serve an amended interlocutory process.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the applicants for the abandonment of the interlocutory process filed 10 November 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory process filed 10 November 2009 was inadequate and inappropriate to achieve the applicants' desired outcome because the applicants had no standing to participate in NSD 209 of 2009 on its present formulation, were not necessary parties under Order 6, rule 8, and did not qualify for the active role they sought as interveners under Order 6, rule 17. Leave was therefore granted to file and serve an amended interlocutory process, and the applicants were ordered to pay 90% of the first, second and third respondents' costs of the directions hearing because about 90% of the hearing concerned the interlocutory process that was no longer pressed.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for amended pleadings, affidavits and an amended interlocutory process; time extended for affidavit evidence; applicants ordered to pay 90% of specified respondents' costs; matter stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['Leave to the plaintiff to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim dated 13 November 2009.' 'Leave to the first defendant / cross claimant to file in Court an Amended Cross Claim by First Defendant.' 'Leave to the first defendant to file an affidavit of Leonard Peel sworn 23 October 2009.' 'Leave to the...