Domanko v Business Catalyst International Pty Ltd and anor [2008] NSWIRComm 120

Domanko v Business Catalyst International Pty Ltd and anor [2008] NSWIRComm 120

Leave to amend was granted because refusing the amendment would involve the same kind of consideration as summarily terminating the proposed proceedings against the additional respondents, and on the material before the Court the applicant's reliance on Brown v Rezitis and Unitedglobalcom could not be characterised as so obviously untenable that it could not possibly succeed or as manifestly groundless. The respondents did not show particular prejudice from the late amendment, and arguments about factual distinctions, utility, and delay were matters for a later stage when evidence had been adduced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Application to Further Amend Summons to Add Two Respondents
Outcome
The applicant was granted leave to file and serve a further amended summons adding the proposed third and fourth respondents, with costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['s 106 Unfair Contract Proceedings' 'amendment of Summons' 'joinder of Respondents' 'summary Termination Principles' 'costs of Amendment']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['s 106 Unfair Contract Proceedings' 'amendment of Summons' 'joinder of Respondents' 'summary Termination Principles' 'costs of Amendment']

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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Application to Further Amend Summons to Add Two Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to further amend the summons to add Business Catalyst Consulting Pty Ltd and Business Catalyst (Hong Kong) Limited as respondents.' 'Whether the proposed claims against the proposed third and fourth respondents were so obviously untenable or manifestly groundless that amendment should be refused.' 'Whether delay, lack of utility, or prejudice justified refusing the amendment.' 'What costs orders should be made on the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because refusing the amendment would involve the same kind of consideration as summarily terminating the proposed proceedings against the additional respondents, and on the material before the Court the applicant's reliance on Brown v Rezitis and Unitedglobalcom could not be characterised as so obviously untenable that it could not possibly succeed or as manifestly groundless. The respondents did not show particular prejudice from the late amendment, and arguments about factual distinctions, utility, and delay were matters for a later stage when evidence had been adduced.

Court Disposition

The applicant was granted leave to file and serve a further amended summons adding the proposed third and fourth respondents, with costs orders made.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is granted leave to file and serve on the existing respondents within 14 days a further amended summons in the form annexed to the applicant's notice of motion filed 10 April 2008." 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the first and second respondents thrown away by reason of the amendment.'...