Bertran v Vanstone [1999] FCA 1427

Bertran v Vanstone [1999] FCA 1427

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments added new claims for relief arising out of substantially the same facts as those already pleaded and any new matters could be pleaded under O 11 r 7; the respondent's justiciability and timing objections were insufficient at this stage. Separate determination was refused because justiciability remained uncertain, the relief sought was discretionary, the questions would likely require significant and overlapping evidence, could require the same witnesses at more than one hearing, and would probably prolong rather than shorten the litigation, so it was not just and convenient to order separate questions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Motion in Extradition Related Federal Court Proceedings / Application for Leave to Amend and for Determination of Separate Questions Before Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend granted in each proceeding; applications for separate determination of questions before trial dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend' 'separate Questions' 'declaratory Relief' 'extraditable Person' 'extradition Offence']
['procedure' 'extradition'] ['leave to Amend' 'separate Questions' 'declaratory Relief' 'extraditable Person' 'extradition Offence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion in Extradition Related Federal Court Proceedings / Application for Leave to Amend and for Determination of Separate Questions Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their applications to seek declarations concerning whether they are extraditable persons and whether an alleged money-laundering offence is an extradition offence.' 'Whether the proposed amended questions were non-justiciable or otherwise unsuitable for declaratory relief.' 'Whether the proposed amendments were barred because they relied on matters arising after commencement of the proceedings.' 'Whether questions should be heard and determined separately from and before any other question in the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments added new claims for relief arising out of substantially the same facts as those already pleaded and any new matters could be pleaded under O 11 r 7; the respondent's justiciability and timing objections were insufficient at this stage. Separate determination was refused because justiciability remained uncertain, the relief sought was discretionary, the questions would likely require significant and overlapping evidence, could require the same witnesses at more than one hearing, and would probably prolong rather than shorten the litigation, so it was not just and convenient to order separate questions.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted in each proceeding; applications for separate determination of questions before trial dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['In V 120 of 1999, the applicant was granted leave to amend his application in accordance with Schedule 1 annexed to the notice of motion dated 5 October 1999.' 'In V 120 of 1999, the application for determination of questions separately from any other question before any trial was dismissed.' 'In V 120 of 1999,...