DOQ17 v Australian Financial Security Authority [2018] FCA 561

DOQ17 v Australian Financial Security Authority [2018] FCA 561

Leave to further amend the statement of claim was refused except for insertion of the constitutional inconsistency issue, because the proposed amendments were futile, statute barred, embarrassing, failed to disclose reasonable causes of action, and granting leave would delay proceedings contrary to case management principles. Joinder of additional respondents was refused for lack of an arguable case and for causing further delay.

Parties
Applicant: DOQ17; First Respondent: Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) formerly known as Insolvency & Trustee Service Australia (ITSA); Second Respondent: Philip Madden; Third Respondent: Tara Czinner; Fourth Respondent: Sally Susan Nash; Fifth Respondent: Registrar General of New South Wales; Seventh Respondent: Savinice Pty Limited (LJ Hooker Picton)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Post Pleadings, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed except for one amendment.
Legal Topics
Case Management, Leave to Amend Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Defamation, Professional Negligence, Injurious Falsehood, Malicious Intent, Contravention of Family Law Act S 121, Professional Misconduct
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Personal Insolvency Case Management Leave to Amend Pleadings Joinder of Parties Defamation Professional Negligence +4 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 36 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DOQ17

Applicant

Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) formerly known as Insolvency & Trustee Service Australia (ITSA)

First Respondent

Philip Madden

Second Respondent

Tara Czinner

Third Respondent

Sally Susan Nash

Fourth Respondent

Registrar General of New South Wales

Fifth Respondent

Savinice Pty Limited (LJ Hooker Picton)

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Post Pleadings, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should leave be granted to further amend the Further Amended Statement of Claim?
  2. 2 Should leave be granted to add new causes of action including defamation, professional negligence, injurious falsehood, malicious intent, professional misconduct?
  3. 3 Should joinder be permitted for two further respondents?

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to further amend the statement of claim was refused except for insertion of the constitutional inconsistency issue, because the proposed amendments were futile, statute barred, embarrassing, failed to disclose reasonable causes of action, and granting leave would delay proceedings contrary to case management principles. Joinder of additional respondents was refused for lack of an arguable case and for causing further delay.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed except for one amendment.

Orders

  • Leave to further amend the Further Amended Statement of Claim is refused except for insertion of paragraph 21 (constitutional issue).
  • Leave allowed to insert paragraph 21 of the proposed Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.