Milner, Bryan John & Ors v Delita Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 493

Milner, Bryan John & Ors v Delita Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 493

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments were fundamentally different to the existing case, were introduced late, no cogent evidence supported the new allegations (especially fraud), and significant prejudice could not be cured by terms. Further, the draft failed to provide required particulars for fraud and misrepresentation.

Parties
Applicants: BRYAN JOHN MILNER AND ORS.; Respondents: DELITA PTY. LIMITED; Respondents: ROGER McMILLAN GLASSON; Respondents: MORRIS WALTER LEWIN; Cross Respondents: ROBERT CHARLES GOOCH MORRISON; Cross Respondents: JOHN CHRISTOPHER BENNETT
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend / Interlocutory
Outcome
application for leave to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation
Trade Practices Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Fraud Negligence Misrepresentation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BRYAN JOHN MILNER AND ORS.

Applicants

DELITA PTY. LIMITED

Respondents

ROGER McMILLAN GLASSON

Respondents

MORRIS WALTER LEWIN

Respondents

ROBERT CHARLES GOOCH MORRISON

Cross Respondents

JOHN CHRISTOPHER BENNETT

Cross Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Amend / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to amend pleadings to add new causes of action and parties
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence to support amendment to allege fraud, negligence, and misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments were fundamentally different to the existing case, were introduced late, no cogent evidence supported the new allegations (especially fraud), and significant prejudice could not be cured by terms. Further, the draft failed to provide required particulars for fraud and misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

application for leave to amend dismissed

Orders

  • application for leave to amend pleadings is dismissed
  • applicants to pay the costs of the respondents and cross respondents of that application