Chapel Road Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1144

Chapel Road Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1144

Leave to amend the pleadings to include Financial Wisdom was refused because without the amendment, discovery sought was not relevant and the circumstances did not justify reopening issues. Further discovery relating to Chapel Road was refused due to verified discovery already given and its sufficiency not being effectively challenged. Discovery of complaints regarding Stephen Cochrane was ordered as relevant to issues pleaded. Discovery in relation to the defendant's investigation of Howard Owen was refused due to lack of relevance in the pleadings. The costs order was amended to correct an error in previous orders.

Parties
Plaintiff: Chapel Road Pty Ltd; Defendant: Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Regarding Amendment of Pleadings and Discovery
Outcome
Leave to amend Plaintiff's pleadings refused; further Chapel Road discovery refused; discovery of complaints received relating to Stephen Cochrane ordered; discovery regarding investigation of Howard Owen refused; costs order amended.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Amendment of Pleadings, Relevance of Documents, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Discovery Amendment of Pleadings Relevance of Documents Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chapel Road Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Australian Securities & Investments Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Regarding Amendment of Pleadings and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the plaintiff's pleadings to refer to Financial Wisdom in relation to differential treatment
  2. 2 Whether further discovery should be ordered in respect of Financial Wisdom, Chapel Road documents, complaints about Stephen Cochrane, and the defendant's investigation of Howard Owen
  3. 3 Whether the previous costs order should be amended

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the pleadings to include Financial Wisdom was refused because without the amendment, discovery sought was not relevant and the circumstances did not justify reopening issues. Further discovery relating to Chapel Road was refused due to verified discovery already given and its sufficiency not being effectively challenged. Discovery of complaints regarding Stephen Cochrane was ordered as relevant to issues pleaded. Discovery in relation to the defendant's investigation of Howard Owen was refused due to lack of relevance in the pleadings. The costs order was amended to correct an error in previous orders.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend Plaintiff's pleadings refused; further Chapel Road discovery refused; discovery of complaints received relating to Stephen Cochrane ordered; discovery regarding investigation of Howard Owen refused; costs order amended.

Orders

  • Leave to amend Plaintiff's pleadings refused.
  • Further discovery by Plaintiff in relation to 'Chapel Road discovery' refused.