{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

7 Multiple Parties

Permissive joinder plaintiff voluntarily adds extra

Info iconThis preview shows pages 17–25. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Permissive joinder – Plaintiff voluntarily adds extra defendants, or co-plaintiffs are consenting to join together in this action. Compulsory joinder where court thinks it necessary for person to be joined in order to resolve the issues in the case. Joinder ≠ joining a party later , though it can be used that way. It means joining parties and issues in the one proceeding from the start.
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Permissive Joinder: r 9.02 Permissive Joinder: r 9.02 2 or more persons can be joined as Ps or Ds in any proceeding – (a) where – (i) if separate proceedings were brought by or against each of them, some common question of law or fact would arise in all the proceedings, AND (ii) all rights to relief claimed (whether joint, several or alternative) …are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, OR (b) where the court gives leave to do so.
Background image of page 18
Transaction per Lord Wright MR term not ‘happily chosen’ Not a term of art, no precise definition An act, the effect of which extends beyond the agent to other persons
Background image of page 19

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Transaction: Birtles v Commonwealth of Australia (1960 SCV) What is a transaction? Industrial accident Sued employer and Cth Was negligence of solicitor in issuing out of time part of the same transaction? Yes Transaction = plaintiff’s right to sue, accident, injury, conduct of solicitors
Background image of page 20
Payne v Young (1980) 145 CLR 609 Claim for a declaration did not arise out of any transaction or series of transactions No common participation by Plaintiffs in abbatoir inspection services. ‘Each series of transactions was peculiar to each individual plaintiff’ ‘The most that can be said here is that the claims arise out of similar transactions’
Background image of page 21

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Other Cases In neither Birtles nor Payne did the court have an order akin to r 9.02(b) Bishop v Bridgelands Securities (1990 Fed) (1993 SCV)
Background image of page 22
Bishop v Bridgelands Securities Respondents sent out letters to many recipients to entice them to invest money in Estate Mortgage, a company which ultimately failed and funds were unsecured. Original Applicant sought to join 114 other investors as co-Applicants. Solicitor had consent of all of them to become parties. Cause of action was breach of section 52, and breach of securities law.
Background image of page 23

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bishop v Bridgelands Securities 1990 Federal Court Wilcox J set out factors to consider: take whatever course is most conducive to a just resolution of this dispute between the parties but try to limit cost and delay inherent in litigation AND joinder was not going to result in any significant prejudice or disadvantage Should all be represented by the same lawyer (as a general practice): someone to be responsible for the running of the case in a co- ordinated manner. Plus should have substantial overlap in the evidence. Existed here.
Background image of page 24
Image of page 25
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page17 / 59

Permissive joinder Plaintiff voluntarily adds extra...

This preview shows document pages 17 - 25. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online