An application under s 588FF(3)(b) for an extension of time is validly made even if it does not identify specific transactions, provided the claim when properly construed falls within the provision. Section 588FF(3) is concerned only with the commencement of proceedings and does not preclude amendment of existing proceedings to add new voidable transaction claims. The general power of amendment under Pt 20 r 1 of the Supreme Court Rules is not limited by Pt 20 r 4 and may be exercised to permit amendments raising statute-barred causes of action wherever justice requires; Clutha v Millar (No. 2) should not be followed on this point. The filing of a statement of claim that omits a claim made in the Originating Process does not constitute abandonment of that claim in the absence of a rule of court providing that the statement of claim supersedes the originating process.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 40 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 40 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.