Allstate Life Insurance Co. & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 660

Allstate Life Insurance Co. & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 660

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed pleading did not identify the material facts showing how each alleged representation was made to each particular applicant, including the occasion, maker, recipient or means of making, and therefore did not comply with O 11 r 2 (a) or O 12 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules, particularly given allegations involving fraud and misrepresentation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Pleadings and Costs / Interlocutory Motion by Applicants for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim, With Costs Applications
Outcome
Applicants' motion for leave to amend dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of the motion; Freehills' application for indemnity costs refused; Freehills' application under O 62 r 3 not granted at that stage but leave granted to apply afresh.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'pleading Misrepresentations' 'material Facts and Particulars' 'fraud Pleading Particularity' 'indemnity Costs' 'taxation and Enforcement of Interlocutory Costs Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'pleadings' 'costs'] ['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'pleading Misrepresentations' 'material Facts and Particulars' 'fraud Pleading Particularity' 'indemnity Costs' 'taxation and Enforcement of Interlocutory Costs Orders']

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; Pleadings and Costs / Interlocutory Motion by Applicants for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim, With Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend the statement of claim to allege that pleaded representations were made orally, in a preliminary prospectus and/or in the prospectus without identifying how each representation was made to each applicant.' 'Whether the proposed pleading complied with the requirement to plead material facts and particulars of misrepresentation or fraud.' 'Whether Freehills should receive indemnity costs of the motion.' 'Whether Freehills should be granted leave under O 62 r 3 of the Federal Court Rules to tax and enforce its costs order forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed pleading did not identify the material facts showing how each alleged representation was made to each particular applicant, including the occasion, maker, recipient or means of making, and therefore did not comply with O 11 r 2 (a) or O 12 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules, particularly given allegations involving fraud and misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

Applicants' motion for leave to amend dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of the motion; Freehills' application for indemnity costs refused; Freehills' application under O 62 r 3 not granted at that stage but leave granted to apply afresh.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' motion brought by notice of motion filed on 31 July 1995 for leave to amend be dismissed." 'The applicants pay the costs of the respondents to that motion, of that motion.' "Leave is granted to the 54th respondents to apply afresh for an order under O 62 of the Federal Court Rules in relation to...