Cutler v Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd, in the matter of Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2011] FCA 79

Cutler v Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd, in the matter of Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2011] FCA 79

Leave to further amend the defence was granted because the proposed amendments raised arguable propositions central to the defence, were not unrelated to the earlier pleadings, did not cause significant prejudice that could not be ameliorated by a costs order, and the procedural history did not justify refusing the amendment.

Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas Cutler; First Defendant: Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) ACN 129 920 458; Second Defendant: Nicholas Craig Malanos; Third Defendant: Christopher Damien Darin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory (application for Leave to Amend Defence)
Outcome
Leave to amend granted, costs order in favour of plaintiff, matter adjourned for new hearing dates
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Adjournment of Hearing
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Costs Adjournment of Hearing

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

Parties

Nicholas Cutler

Plaintiff

Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) ACN 129 920 458

First Defendant

Nicholas Craig Malanos

Second Defendant

Christopher Damien Darin

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory (application for Leave to Amend Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the defendants to further amend the defence
  2. 2 Consequences of granting leave including vacation of hearing dates and costs

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to further amend the defence was granted because the proposed amendments raised arguable propositions central to the defence, were not unrelated to the earlier pleadings, did not cause significant prejudice that could not be ameliorated by a costs order, and the procedural history did not justify refusing the amendment.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted, costs order in favour of plaintiff, matter adjourned for new hearing dates

Orders

  • Leave be granted to the defendants to further amend the Notice of Grounds of Defence in the form annexed and marked A to the Notice of Motion dated 2 February 2011 by 4 p.m. on 4 February 2011.
  • The hearing dates of 3 and 4 February 2011 be vacated.