S.P.I. Spirits (Cyprus) Ltd v Diageo Australia Ltd (No. 4) [2007] FCA 1035

S.P.I. Spirits (Cyprus) Ltd v Diageo Australia Ltd (No. 4) [2007] FCA 1035

Leave to amend pleadings should generally be granted unless the amendments are so obviously futile or prejudicial that they would be struck out or cause injustice which cannot be remedied by costs or adjournment. In this case, although some amendments might lack detailed material facts, they are not so prejudicial as to deny leave, and the inclusion of certain statements of law or facts does not necessarily render them embarrassing.

Parties
First Applicant: S.P.I. Spirits (Cyprus) Limited; Second Applicant: Spirits International N.V.; First Respondent: Diageo Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport; First Cross Claimant: Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport; Second Cross Claimant: State Federal Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP) (VO); First Cross Respondent: Spirits International N.V.; Second Cross Respondent: Diageo Australia Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Applicants granted leave to file and serve a Further Amended Application and Statement of Claim; specific costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Pleadings, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Implied Terms, Express Terms, Pleading Requirements
Commercial Law Trade Practices Contracts Leave to Amend Pleadings Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Implied Terms Express Terms Pleading Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.P.I. Spirits (Cyprus) Limited

First Applicant

Spirits International N.V.

Second Applicant

Diageo Australia Limited

First Respondent

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport

Second Respondent

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport

First Cross Claimant

State Federal Unitary Enterprise External Economic Union Sojuzplodoimport (FGUP) (VO)

Second Cross Claimant

Spirits International N.V.

First Cross Respondent

Diageo Australia Limited

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the application and statement of claim
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments are embarrassing due to inadequacy of material facts
  3. 3 Whether amendments widen the ambit of breach allegations beyond Australia into the Territory

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend pleadings should generally be granted unless the amendments are so obviously futile or prejudicial that they would be struck out or cause injustice which cannot be remedied by costs or adjournment. In this case, although some amendments might lack detailed material facts, they are not so prejudicial as to deny leave, and the inclusion of certain statements of law or facts does not necessarily render them embarrassing.

Court Disposition

Applicants granted leave to file and serve a Further Amended Application and Statement of Claim; specific costs orders made.

Orders

  • Applicants have leave to file and serve a Further Amended Application and Statement of Claim in the form exhibited to the affidavit of Maurice Charles Gonsalves sworn 22 December 2006 and marked as Exhibits MCG1 and MCG2 respectively.
  • Applicants pay first respondent's costs occasioned by, and thrown away in consequence of, such amendments.