• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The earlier pleading, filed on 3 December 2018, alleged that the trustee caused distributions to be made to the three plaintiffs in or before December 2009: $2,577,295 each to the first and second plaintiffs, and $2,147,746 to the third. The plaintiffs alleged that those distributions were not made, that the trustee held the relevant amounts on separate sub-trusts for them, and that it had failed to pay what was due. The judgment records that the plaintiffs knew, by the time of that pleading at the latest, that the trustee no longer had the funds to pay the claimed amounts ([3]).

The trustee's principal defence was that the plaintiffs had agreed in about early 2009 to return unpaid distributions to the trustee in connection with an arrangement about using the plaintiffs' tax losses. Under the alleged arrangement, the trust and Mr Twigg would reimburse the plaintiffs for future tax payable because the trust had used those losses. The plaintiffs denied that they had made such an agreement ([4]). That was a disputed factual matter, not resolved by the amendment decision.

The proceeding was listed to begin on 1 June 2020 and was to be heard alongside another case involving the parties and associated entities. That other case concerned allegations about distributions by other family companies acting as trustees. Ball J expressly said its details were not relevant to the motion ([5]).

The proposed amendments added claims concerning what happened to the trustee's money and the role of Mr Twigg. In summary, the plaintiffs alleged that the trustee had a duty to ensure it had financial resources to pay the distributions; had paid away $8,604,805 in the 2010 and 2011 financial years and a further $3,324,825 between 2012 and 2016, leaving it unable to pay; or alternatively failed to realise assets from which payment could have been made. They also alleged that Mr Twigg induced or procured breaches of duty, or that he or companies described as his alter ego knowingly received funds as part of a fraudulent or dishonest design ([6]).

The defendants objected on three broad grounds: the application was late and unexplained; they would have to investigate transactions over a number of years shortly before trial; and aspects of the new pleading were unclear or legally inadequate. Their examples included the alleged duty to preserve financial resources, the word “removed”, and the pleaded knowledge said to underpin knowing assistance or knowing receipt ([7]).

Why the court decided this way

Ball J accepted that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Plaintiffs' counsel candidly acknowledged that there was no good explanation, and the judge accepted that this counted against allowing amendment ([8]). But the judgment did not treat unexplained delay as an automatic bar. Its importance depended on the practical circumstances.

The statutory reference point was s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW): the primary question was whether the proposed amendments would “facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings” ([8]). Ball J contrasted two situations. If an amendment required the hearing date to be vacated, the absence of a good explanation would be a very important consideration. If the case could proceed and the defendant suffered no real prejudice, the absence of an explanation had limited significance ([8]).

On prejudice, the court was not persuaded that the defendants had identified a real impediment to the scheduled hearing. It was not seriously suggested that the hearing date would need to be vacated. The defendants said they would have to investigate financial transactions across several years, while preparing for this case and the related trial. Ball J considered the claimed burden exaggerated in the circumstances ([9]).

The judge pointed to the existing shape of the dispute. The judgment says it appeared to be accepted that the distributions were recorded in the trustee's financial statements and that the trustee had resources to make them when they were made. The principal defence was that the distributions had not been made because of the alleged agreement. Its existence and terms would be investigated at trial in any event ([9]). The judge also considered the relevance of Mr Twigg's position: he had been the sole director and shareholder throughout the relevant period and would be expected to give evidence. The court found it difficult to see why he could not give additional evidence about the payments if those details were important to the defence ([9]).

On the pleading objections, Ball J concluded that the proposed pleading was sufficiently clear for the defendants to understand the case they had to meet. The case did not strike the judge as hopeless. The complaints raised legal questions that could be dealt with at trial ([10]). This was an interlocutory assessment about whether the claims could be pleaded, not a ruling that the alleged duties existed or that the alleged recipient liability was established.

The costs orders reflected the procedural result. The plaintiffs accepted responsibility for costs thrown away by the amendment. The court ordered them to pay those costs. It also ordered the costs of the motion to be the plaintiffs' costs in the cause. Ball J considered that appropriate because the plaintiffs succeeded on the motion, but it would not be just for the defendants to pay those costs if the amended case ultimately failed ([11]-[12]).

Before and after state of the law

This judgment identifies and applies the statutory objective in s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). It does not set out a broad review of earlier amendment authorities or purport to change the statutory test. Its contribution, on the text provided, is a contextual explanation of how delay is weighed against the practical effects of an amendment ([8]).

Before the ruling, the plaintiffs' pleaded case was directed to unpaid distributions and the alleged consequences of the trustee not paying them ([3]). After leave was granted, the plaintiffs could plead additional allegations about the trustee's financial resources and payments, alternative failure to realise assets, and Mr Twigg's alleged participation or receipt of funds ([6], [12]). The judgment did not determine whether any of those allegations were true or whether the pleaded legal duties and causes of action would succeed.

For procedure, the decision illustrates that an unexplained late amendment may still be permitted where the court finds no real prejudice and the trial can proceed. The converse is also expressly stated: where an amendment necessitates vacation of the hearing date, the lack of a good explanation is a very important consideration ([8]). The passage makes the practical consequences of the amendment central to the assessment, rather than treating delay in isolation.

The decision also distinguishes the amendment question from the merits. The court found the pleading clear enough and not apparently hopeless, but expressly left the legal objections for trial ([10]). It therefore cannot be read as deciding that the trustee owed the alleged financial-resources duty, that the word “removed” was ultimately sufficient in a final pleading, or that the allegations against Mr Twigg met the substantive requirements for knowing assistance or knowing receipt. Those questions were among the defendants' objections, and the judgment says they could be dealt with at trial ([7], [10]).

No later decisions or subsequent treatment are included in the supplied judgment text. As a result, this account cannot state whether later courts followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated this decision. Its documented procedural reasoning is limited to Ball J's application of s 56(1) on the facts before him.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [8], Ball J stated that the “primary question” was whether the amendments would “facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues” under s 56(1). In plain English, the court focused on whether allowing the new allegations would help resolve the actual dispute fairly and efficiently, rather than deciding the application solely by asking whether the plaintiffs had acted promptly.

At [8], the judgment says that where an amendment requires the hearing to be vacated, the lack of a good explanation for delay is “a very important consideration”. In plain English, disruption to a fixed trial date can make unexplained delay carry substantial weight.

The same paragraph says that where the case can proceed and the defendant suffers “no real prejudice”, the lack of explanation is “of limited significance”. This is not a statement that delay never matters. It describes the balance in circumstances where the court sees no meaningful unfairness to the other party and no need to postpone the hearing.

At [9], Ball J considered the defendants' claim that they would have to investigate transactions from several financial years. The judge viewed the asserted burden as exaggerated, partly because the financial statements and the alleged agreement were already relevant, and because Mr Twigg was expected to give evidence. In plain English, the court assessed the practical work required against the evidence likely to be relevant in the existing case.

At [10], the court said the pleading was “sufficiently clear” for the defendants to understand the case they had to meet, and that the case did not appear hopeless. This was a threshold assessment for allowing the pleading to be advanced, not a final finding on the legal validity of every claim.

Finally, [12] records the orders. The plaintiffs received leave to file and serve the amended documents, had to pay costs thrown away by the amendments, and were awarded the motion costs in the cause. In plain English, they could pursue the amendments, but bore the immediate costs caused by changing the pleadings, while the motion costs were left to be dealt with as part of the eventual outcome.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most relevant as an example where a party seeks leave to amend pleadings relatively close to trial, cannot give a good explanation for the delay, and the opposing party claims that the amendment will create additional investigative work. The central questions reflected in the judgment are whether the hearing date must be vacated, whether the opponent will suffer real prejudice, whether the new pleading identifies a real issue, and whether it is clear enough to be answered ([8]-[10]).

The facts here included an imminent trial, a related case to be heard at the same time, proposed allegations concerning financial transactions over several years, and a defendant who had been sole director and shareholder of the relevant corporate trustee ([5], [6], [9]). The court relied on those circumstances when assessing the practical prejudice asserted. The decision does not establish that the same result follows whenever a late amendment concerns financial records or a director's conduct. Ball J's reasons are tied to the particular record and submissions before the Court.

The judgment also speaks to objections that a proposed claim is legally doubtful or insufficiently particularised. Here, the court considered the pleading sufficiently clear and not hopeless, while leaving the substantive legal questions to trial ([10]). It is therefore relevant to the distinction between assessing whether a pleading may proceed and deciding whether its claims ultimately succeed.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases, and it predates any later treatment that might be relevant. It identifies no precedent as applied, distinguished, followed, or overruled. No conclusion about subsequent judicial treatment can therefore be drawn from this source alone.

The reasons cite s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), but the supplied text does not cite other judgments. This means the decision's recorded legal foundation is the statutory objective and the judge's assessment of delay, prejudice, clarity, and the ability to proceed with the scheduled hearing ([8]-[10]). Any account of later appellate consideration, citation history, or development of the law would require sources beyond this judgment.

Still-open questions

The main merits questions remained unresolved. The Court did not decide whether Twigg Investments owed a duty to ensure it retained sufficient financial resources to pay the distributions, whether it breached any duty by making payments or failing to realise assets, or whether Mr Twigg induced or procured a breach ([6], [10]). Nor did it decide whether the alleged knowing receipt or knowing assistance case was legally established. The defendants had raised objections about the relevant knowledge standard, but Ball J considered the legal complaints matters for trial ([7], [10]).

The alleged agreement about returning distributions in connection with the use of tax losses also remained contested. The defendants relied on it as their principal defence, and the plaintiffs denied it. The judgment says its existence and terms would be investigated at trial; it makes no factual finding about whether the agreement was made ([4], [9]).

The practical impact of the amendments on the trial, including the evidence ultimately required and whether the new allegations could be proved, was not determined. The Court's conclusion was limited to the procedural application: the amendments could be filed and served, subject to the stated costs orders ([12]). Whether the amended claims would succeed, and how the trial court would resolve the disputed facts and legal issues, remained open.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.