Aust-Pol Engineering Pty Ltd v Australian Maritime Safety Authority & Ors [1998] FCA 1198

Aust-Pol Engineering Pty Ltd v Australian Maritime Safety Authority & Ors [1998] FCA 1198

Given the persistently inadequate and embarrassing nature of the applicant's pleadings, repeated delays, failure to properly state material facts or sufficiently particularise claims, and the history demonstrating an inability to comply with court procedure, the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time or allow further amendment; the applicant's motion was dismissed and the proceeding struck out with costs.

Parties
Applicant: Aust-Pol Engineering Pty Limited; First Respondent: Australian Maritime Safety Authority; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Third Respondent: Donald Brodie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application; Reasons for Judgment on Motion to Extend Time and Amendment
Outcome
Motion for extension of time and leave to amend dismissed; proceeding struck out with costs.
Legal Topics
Pleading, Guillotine (self Executing) Orders, Extension of Time, Negligence, Breach of Duty, Misfeasance in Public Office, Contract (tendering Process), Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Pleading Guillotine (self Executing) Orders Extension of Time Negligence Breach of Duty Misfeasance in Public Office Contract (tendering Process) +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aust-Pol Engineering Pty Limited

Applicant

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Donald Brodie

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application; Reasons for Judgment on Motion to Extend Time and Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time after a guillotine order made by consent
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to file a fourth further amended statement of claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's pleadings are adequately particularised or embarrassing

Ratio Decidendi

Given the persistently inadequate and embarrassing nature of the applicant's pleadings, repeated delays, failure to properly state material facts or sufficiently particularise claims, and the history demonstrating an inability to comply with court procedure, the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time or allow further amendment; the applicant's motion was dismissed and the proceeding struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

Motion for extension of time and leave to amend dismissed; proceeding struck out with costs.

Orders

  • The motion of the applicant for extension of the times fixed by the orders of the court made by consent on 23 May 1997 be dismissed.
  • The amended statement of claim filed in purported compliance with the orders made by consent on 23 May 1997 be struck out, and leave be refused to file the applicant's proposed Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim.