Interlocutory application for leave to file further amended statement of claim rejected
Noting United Petroleum Pty Ltd’s “unsuccessful attempts to plead a viable case,” the Australian Federal Court denied its interlocutory application for leave to file a proposed further amended statement of claim and a further amended originating application.
United Petroleum – the applicant in United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Bomma [2026] FCA 1055 – brought an interlocutory application for leave to file a further amended statement of claim and a further amended originating application.
In a cross-application, the respondents sought to strike out the applicant’s amended statement of claim and to summarily dismiss the applicant’s claims.
During the hearing of the interlocutory applications, the applicant accepted that the court should strike out the amended statement of claim and discontinued its application to file a further amended statement of claim in the form then before the court.
Following the narrowing of the issues, the remaining questions were whether the applicant should receive another opportunity to plead its claims; if so, which claims were permissible; and if not, whether summary judgment in the respondents’ favour was appropriate.
The applicant alleged that the court should allow it to replead because it had at least a “germ of a case.” The respondents still pursued summary dismissal.
The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory application for leave to file its proposed further amended statement of claim and further amended originating application.
The court struck out the amended statement of claim and required the applicant to obtain leave before filing another statement of claim.
“This proceeding has languished under the weight of the applicant’s unsuccessful attempts to plead a viable case,” wrote Justice Wheelahan for the court. “As I remarked at the hearing, the matter has the appearance of a set of allegations in search of a cause of action.”
The court otherwise adjourned the respondents’ summary judgment application for a further hearing.
The Federal Court explained that any future applications for leave to file another statement of claim should include:
Regarding the supporting affidavits, the court clarified that annexing correspondence between solicitors would not be enough to assist the court.
When addressing an application for leave to file another statement of claim in the future, regardless of the respondent’s position on the application, the court would need to consider:
The court might also have to consider the quantum of the applicant’s claim and whether its discretion in connection with costs in r 40.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) applied.
At this point, the Federal Court refused the applicant’s request for leave to replead. However, the court gave the applicant an opportunity to bring an interlocutory application to replead based on the proper material.
Regarding whether the applicant had sustained actual damage, the court noted that the respondents failed to:
Here are some other decisions by the Federal Court of Australia.
In a proceeding involving the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia’s refusal to renew the respondent’s legal practising certificate, the Federal Court issued a 4 August 2026 judgment upholding a sequestration order over his estate, such that he was a bankrupt.
The Federal Court made a 30 July 2026 judgment finding that ALS Limited had waived legal professional privilege over at least some information in a report prepared by McGrathNicol, following disclosure of the information in an Australian Securities Exchange announcement.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
