Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 1) [2011] FCA 936

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 1) [2011] FCA 936

Leave to amend the notice of contention was refused because Chameleon failed to adequately explain the delay in seeking the amendment, as generally required by Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175. Further, r 36.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 does not provide a right to file a fresh notice of contention upon service of an amended notice of appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Phillip Felice Grimaldi; First Respondent: Chameleon Mining NL; Second Respondent: Murchison Metals Limited ACN 078 257 799
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application on Amendment of Notice of Contention
Outcome
Application to amend notice of contention dismissed with costs; application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Notice of Contention, Appeals, Procedural Fairness, Delay in Procedural Steps
Practice and Procedure Amendment of Notice of Contention Appeals Procedural Fairness Delay in Procedural Steps

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Felice Grimaldi

Appellant

Chameleon Mining NL

First Respondent

Murchison Metals Limited ACN 078 257 799

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application on Amendment of Notice of Contention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent (Chameleon) should be granted leave to amend its notice of contention to raise grounds that the appellant was an 'officer' under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), or knowingly concerned in a breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether r 36.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 entitles the respondent to file a notice of contention after service of an amended notice of appeal
  3. 3 Whether explanation for delay in seeking amendment to the notice of contention is adequate under Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the notice of contention was refused because Chameleon failed to adequately explain the delay in seeking the amendment, as generally required by Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175. Further, r 36.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 does not provide a right to file a fresh notice of contention upon service of an amended notice of appeal.

Court Disposition

Application to amend notice of contention dismissed with costs; application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • The first respondent's notice of motion be dismissed with costs.
  • The first respondent's oral application for adjournment be refused.