Kirby v Centro Properties Limited [2011] FCA 611

Kirby v Centro Properties Limited [2011] FCA 611

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed allegations were arguable and not futile under s 31A, the applicants had not acted with unreasonable or inexplicable delay, and although the amendments would cause further interlocutory steps, costs and preparation burdens, a trial in 2011 was already difficult to achieve and a March 2012 trial would give respondents sufficient time to prepare.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Amendment to Statement of Claim / Application for Leave to Amend Statements of Claim Before Trial
Outcome
Leave granted for the applicants to make the amendments to their statements of claim.
Legal Topics
['amendment to Statement of Claim' 'summary Judgment Under S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'discretion to Grant Leave to Amend' 'financial Reporting and Current Liabilities' 'trial Management and Prejudice']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['amendment to Statement of Claim' 'summary Judgment Under S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'discretion to Grant Leave to Amend' 'financial Reporting and Current Liabilities' 'trial Management and Prejudice']

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

Practice and Procedure – Amendment to Statement of Claim / Application for Leave to Amend Statements of Claim Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' proposed amendments disclosed a properly arguable case or were liable to summary judgment under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)." 'Whether leave to amend should be refused on discretionary grounds because of lateness, proximity to the hearing date, required amendments to defences and cross-claims, discovery, expert evidence, costs and prejudice to respondents.' 'Whether the pending trial date should prevent the grant of leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed allegations were arguable and not futile under s 31A, the applicants had not acted with unreasonable or inexplicable delay, and although the amendments would cause further interlocutory steps, costs and preparation burdens, a trial in 2011 was already difficult to achieve and a March 2012 trial would give respondents sufficient time to prepare.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for the applicants to make the amendments to their statements of claim.

Orders

  • ['The amendments were allowed.' 'The parties were asked to consider the appropriate timetable for a trial commencing on Monday 5 March 2012.' 'The parties were asked to consider any other matters, including questions of costs, and raise them at a further directions hearing at 11.00am on 14 June 2011.']