Bride & Ors v Anglo Australian Foods Pty Ltd & Ors

[2000] WASCA 124

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Relitigation of issues determined in prior proceedings
4. › Whether fresh evidence sufficient to distinguish present claims from prior unsuccessful litigation
5. › Whether proposed amended statement of claim disclosed cause of action
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Res judicata and issue estoppel
3. › Claims arising from same facts as prior proceedings
4. › Whether substitution of parent company for subsidiary altered position
5. › Whether addition of new party altered estoppel position
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Amendment of statement of claim
4. › Refusal of leave to amend
5. › Whether further opportunity to replead should be granted to litigant in person
6. › Whether proposed amended pleading disclosed cause of action
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Striking out statement of claim
4. › No reasonable cause of action disclosed

Quick Take

A subsidiary relationship between a parent company and a registered proprietor does not create in the parent company any interest in the land held by the subsidiary, and a claim raising the same issues against the parent as were unsuccessfully raised against the subsidiary must also fail. Allegedly 'fresh' evidence that was available at the time of prior proceedings and was in fact raised before the High Court on a special leave application cannot be relied upon to distinguish subsequent proceedings from those already determined. The fact that a litigant is unrepresented is a misfortune not a privilege and does not entitle them to indefinite opportunities to replead.