Fencott, B.E. & Assoc. Pty Ltd v Eretta Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 370

Fencott, B.E. & Assoc. Pty Ltd v Eretta Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 370

The amendments were allowed because the first group was unopposed, the time-barred Trade Practices Act 1974 amendment was no longer pressed, and the remaining fiduciary duty amendments were not refused on accrued jurisdiction grounds and had been redrafted to clarify the claims.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 1986
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Amendments allowed in part as redrafted; proposed s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 amendment not pressed.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'trade Practices Act 1974 S.52 Claim' 'limitation Under Trade Practices Act 1974 S.82(2)' 'fiduciary Duty' 'accrued Jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'equity'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'trade Practices Act 1974 S.52 Claim' 'limitation Under Trade Practices Act 1974 S.82(2)' 'fiduciary Duty' 'accrued Jurisdiction']

Source-derived case record

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 to Amend Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to amend the Statement of Claim in three groups of proposed amendments.' 'Whether the proposed claim under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 against proposed third, fourth and fifth respondents should proceed despite being conceded to be barred by s.82(2).' 'Whether amendments alleging that proposed third, fourth and fifth respondents were parties to breaches of fiduciary duty should be refused as outside accrued jurisdiction or because the drafting was unclear.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments were allowed because the first group was unopposed, the time-barred Trade Practices Act 1974 amendment was no longer pressed, and the remaining fiduciary duty amendments were not refused on accrued jurisdiction grounds and had been redrafted to clarify the claims.

Court Disposition

Amendments allowed in part as redrafted; proposed s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 amendment not pressed.

Orders

  • ['The amendments are allowed as set forth in Exhibit A, substituting the pages in Exhibit B for the corresponding pages in Exhibit A.']