McNamara v San (No. 2) [2010] FCA 116

McNamara v San (No. 2) [2010] FCA 116

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendment may have been stylistic rather than substantive and, provided costs that may prove to have been thrown away were reserved, there was no objection to the amendment sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Bankruptcy Proceeding by a Creditor Challenging the Validity of a Transfer of a Family Home Forming Part of a Bankrupt Estate / Application for Leave to Further Amend the Further Amended Application During the Hearing of a Summary Dismissal Motion
Outcome
Leave to further amend the Further Amended Application was granted, and costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondents that may prove to be thrown away were reserved.
Legal Topics
['void Transfers Under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)' 'amendment of Application' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs Reserved']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['void Transfers Under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)' 'amendment of Application' 'summary Dismissal' 'costs Reserved']

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

Federal Court Bankruptcy Proceeding by a Creditor Challenging the Validity of a Transfer of a Family Home Forming Part of a Bankrupt Estate / Application for Leave to Further Amend the Further Amended Application During the Hearing of a Summary Dismissal Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should have leave to further amend paragraph A3 of the Further Amended Application filed 3 November 2009.' "Whether the applicant should have leave to amend paragraph 2 of the preamble to the Further Amended Application concerning the Court's jurisdiction and the relief sought." 'Whether costs that may be thrown away by the further amendments should be reserved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendment may have been stylistic rather than substantive and, provided costs that may prove to have been thrown away were reserved, there was no objection to the amendment sought.

Court Disposition

Leave to further amend the Further Amended Application was granted, and costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondents that may prove to be thrown away were reserved.

Orders

  • ['Leave to the applicant to further amend the Further Amended Application filed 3 November 2009 by deleting paragraph A3 and substituting as A3 "A declaration that the transfer of the family home of the first and second respondents to the third respondent is void against the fourth and fifth respondents."' 'Leave to...