Management 3 Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lenny's Commercial Kitchens Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCA 662

Management 3 Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lenny's Commercial Kitchens Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCA 662

Leave to amend was refused because, after the evidence was complete and the parties' cases had closed, the proposed amendments sought to introduce complex and substantive new claims and allegations against both respondents, including a restitution claim against Sino, expanded conversion allegations, rescission and repudiation, an implied term, breach of contract, novation, unjust enrichment and an expanded money had and received claim. The applicants gave no satisfactory explanation for raising those matters at such a late stage. Allowing the amendments would require respondents to consider, re-plead and respond by legal argument and possibly further evidence, causing a prolonged...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / After Conclusion of Evidence and Closure of Each Party's Case, Before Oral Final Submissions
Outcome
Application for leave to amend the applicants' statement of claim refused.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'leave to Amend' 'late Amendment After Close of Evidence' 'case Management' 'prejudice' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'leave to Amend' 'late Amendment After Close of Evidence' 'case Management' 'prejudice' 'costs']

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 Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / After Conclusion of Evidence and Closure of Each Party's Case, Before Oral Final Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their statement of claim after the conclusion of evidence and the closure of the parties' cases." 'Whether the proposed amendments were minor clarifications or introduced complex and substantive new claims and allegations requiring adjournment and causing prejudice.' 'Whether the lateness of the application was satisfactorily explained under the principles governing amendments to pleadings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because, after the evidence was complete and the parties' cases had closed, the proposed amendments sought to introduce complex and substantive new claims and allegations against both respondents, including a restitution claim against Sino, expanded conversion allegations, rescission and repudiation, an implied term, breach of contract, novation, unjust enrichment and an expanded money had and received claim. The applicants gave no satisfactory explanation for raising those matters at such a late stage. Allowing the amendments would require respondents to consider, re-plead and respond by legal argument and possibly further evidence, causing a prolonged...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend the applicants' statement of claim refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application to amend the applicants' statement of claim dated 18 December 2009, which costs shall include the costs of the day, being 18 April 2011."]