Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 1043

Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 1043

Leave to amend was granted because the statutory contribution claim based on alleged co-ordinate liability under s 1022B(3)(b)(ii) was not shown to be untenable and was sufficiently pleaded and particularised for Mallesons to know the case it had to meet. The negligence duty point was novel, not wholly dispositive of the proceeding against Mallesons because the statutory claim would likely proceed, and was more appropriately left for trial rather than determined summarily on the leave application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Proposed Amended Tenth Cross Claim
Outcome
The cross-claimant was granted leave to file its proposed amended tenth cross-claim against Mallesons.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend' 'product Disclosure Statement' 'defective Pds' 'misleading or Deceptive Statement' 'omissions From Disclosure' 'contribution' 'duty of Care of Solicitors' 'summary Termination']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'negligence'] ['leave to Amend' 'product Disclosure Statement' 'defective Pds' 'misleading or Deceptive Statement' 'omissions From Disclosure' 'contribution' 'duty of Care of Solicitors' 'summary Termination']

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

Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Amend Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Proposed Amended Tenth Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether AECOM should be granted leave to file its proposed amended tenth cross-claim against Mallesons.' 'Whether the proposed amended cross-claim based on alleged co-ordinate liability under s 1022B(3)(b)(ii) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was untenable or insufficiently pleaded and particularised.' 'Whether the proposed negligence claim was untenable because Mallesons owed no duty of care to prospective investors.' 'Whether the duty of care point should be determined on the application for leave to amend or left for trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the statutory contribution claim based on alleged co-ordinate liability under s 1022B(3)(b)(ii) was not shown to be untenable and was sufficiently pleaded and particularised for Mallesons to know the case it had to meet. The negligence duty point was novel, not wholly dispositive of the proceeding against Mallesons because the statutory claim would likely proceed, and was more appropriately left for trial rather than determined summarily on the leave application.

Court Disposition

The cross-claimant was granted leave to file its proposed amended tenth cross-claim against Mallesons.

Orders

  • ['The cross-claimant is granted leave to file its proposed amended tenth cross-claim.' 'The amended tenth cross-claim to be filed pursuant to order 1 be filed and served by 1 October 2014.' 'The cross-respondent to the tenth cross-claim file and serve its defence to the amended cross-claim by 31 October 2014.' "The...