Findlay v DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2); Mastoris v DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1816

Findlay v DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2); Mastoris v DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1816

The plaintiffs were not permitted to add paras 506A and 509A or the consequential amendments because the proposed amendments did not identify what Deloitte ought to have done or what further management analysis would have occurred, did not show what consequences would have followed for the financial statements or share value, appeared futile without supporting evidence, and would open two substantial new areas of factual enquiry that Deloitte could not reasonably and practically address before the hearing. Because the amendments were refused, the plaintiffs were also not permitted to rely on Mr Archer's supplementary report.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings in Equity / Application for Leave to File a Further Amended Joint Statement of Claim and to Rely on a Supplementary Expert Report
Outcome
Application to amend by including paras 506A and 509A and consequential amendments, and to rely on Mr Archer's supplementary report, refused.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'amendment' 'late Amendments' 'factual Enquiry' 'futility' 'prejudice' 'expert Report']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['pleadings' 'amendment' 'late Amendments' 'factual Enquiry' 'futility' 'prejudice' 'expert Report']

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

Representative Proceedings in Equity / Application for Leave to File a Further Amended Joint Statement of Claim and to Rely on a Supplementary Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the statement of claim by including paras 506A and 509A and consequential amendments concerning prior year audits.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to rely on the supplementary report of Mr Andrew Archer dated 25 October 2019.' 'Whether the proposed amendments would open new areas of factual enquiry, be futile, or prejudice Deloitte if permitted before the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were not permitted to add paras 506A and 509A or the consequential amendments because the proposed amendments did not identify what Deloitte ought to have done or what further management analysis would have occurred, did not show what consequences would have followed for the financial statements or share value, appeared futile without supporting evidence, and would open two substantial new areas of factual enquiry that Deloitte could not reasonably and practically address before the hearing. Because the amendments were refused, the plaintiffs were also not permitted to rely on Mr Archer's supplementary report.

Court Disposition

Application to amend by including paras 506A and 509A and consequential amendments, and to rely on Mr Archer's supplementary report, refused.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs not be permitted to amend the statement of claim by including paras 506A and 509A and any consequential amendments.' 'The plaintiffs not be permitted to rely on the supplementary report of Mr Archer dated 25 October 2019.']