PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to amend originating application and pleading - where representative Applicants allege loss and damage arising from Respondents' rating of synthetic collateralised debt obligations (SCDOs) - where amendments seek to introduce causes of action in tort of deceit and equitable unconscionability - where amendments brought more than two years after proceedings commenced and seven months before joint trial with related proceedings - where Respondents plead that the Applicants' causes of action are statute barred - where deceit claim would form basis of concealed fraud claim to defeat limitation defence - whether leave to amend should be allowed - whether deceit claim is reasonably arguable or has reasonable prospects of success - whether deceit claim would be statue barred and is therefore futile - whether pleading is deficient - discretionary considerations - importance of the amendments - whether delay in bringing amendments adequately explained - prejudice to the Respondents - prejudice to third parties in related proceedings
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend - whether deceit claim is governed by New York law - whether deceit claim is statute barred - whether Australia is the appropriate forum for the determination of the deceit claim
Held: leave to amend granted.
↧