Eversden Pty Ltd v Miladi

[2015] QCA 126

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Parties
3. › Joinder of parties
4. › Joinder after expiry of limitation period
5. › Whether relief sought cannot be granted unless new party included
6. › Whether deregistration of original defendant satisfies requirement
7. › Availability of reinstatement under Corporations Act
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69(1)(b)(ii), r 69(2)(f)(ii)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Amendment of pleadings
3. › Amendment after limitation period
4. › New cause of action
5. › Whether new cause of action arises out of substantially the same facts
6. › Different duties and breaches alleged against different entity
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 376(4)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Default judgment
3. › Setting aside default judgment
4. › Whether utility in setting aside where joinder and amendment not available
5. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 290
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from discretionary decision
4. › Whether discretion miscarried
5. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

The deregistration of a defendant company does not satisfy r 69(2)(f)(ii) of the UCPR (that relief cannot be granted unless a new party is included) where the plaintiff has the option of applying for reinstatement under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A proposed amendment to join a new defendant as owner of premises, alleging a non-delegable duty based on care, supervision and control over the original defendant operator, does not arise out of substantially the same facts as the original claim against the operator for the purposes of r 376(4).