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 3) [2019] NSWSC 1827

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 3) [2019] NSWSC 1827

The amendment merely extends the case already pleaded, does not require broad new factual investigation, is consistent with the evidence and the Prospectus, and any delay or need for further response can be accommodated by procedural directions. Therefore, leave to amend should be granted.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Haliburton Charles David Findlay; Second Plaintiff: Marian Jennifer Denny Findlay; First Plaintiff: Epaminodas Mastoris; Second Plaintiff: Lena Mastoris; First Defendant: DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation); Second Defendant: Nicholas Abboud; Third Defendant: Michael Thomas Potts; Fourth to Four Hundred & Fifty Seventh Defendants: David White and others listed in Annexure A t/as Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Pleading
Outcome
application for leave to amend granted
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment, Leave to Amend, Prejudice, Factual Enquiry
Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment Leave to Amend Prejudice Factual Enquiry

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haliburton Charles David Findlay

First Plaintiff

Marian Jennifer Denny Findlay

Second Plaintiff

Epaminodas Mastoris

First Plaintiff

Lena Mastoris

Second Plaintiff

DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation)

First Defendant

Nicholas Abboud

Second Defendant

Michael Thomas Potts

Third Defendant

David White and others listed in Annexure A t/as Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Fourth to Four Hundred & Fifty Seventh Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Pleading

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to para 504(a) of the statement of claim should be permitted
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment raises a new factual enquiry causing prejudice to defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment merely extends the case already pleaded, does not require broad new factual investigation, is consistent with the evidence and the Prospectus, and any delay or need for further response can be accommodated by procedural directions. Therefore, leave to amend should be granted.

Court Disposition

application for leave to amend granted

Orders

  • Plaintiffs permitted to amend para 504(a) of the statement of claim as sought.