Legal Research
Cases
Bainbridge v Lawton

Bainbridge v Lawton

Case [2002] WASC 293 4 December 2002

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Joinder

Statutory Interpretation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: BAINBRIDGE & ORS -v- LAWTON & ORS [2002] WASC 293

CORAM: WHEELER J

HEARD: 27 NOVEMBER 2002

DELIVERED : 4 DECEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: CIV 1813 of 2002

BETWEEN: JOYCE IRENE BAINBRIDGE & ORS
Plaintiffs
AND
GARY HAMILTON LAWTON
IAN ROSS GILLON
First Defendants
GARY HAMILTON LAWTON
IAN ROSS GILLON
JULIAN RICHARD TYDDE
Second Defendants
GARY HAMILTON LAWTON
IAN ROSS GILLON
JULIAN RICHARD TYDDE
SIMON CHRISTOPHER ENGLAND
Third Defendants
GARY HAMILTON LAWTON
IAN ROSS GILLON
SIMON CHRISTOPHER ENGLAND
Fourth Defendants

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Joinder - Addition of plaintiffs - Arguable limitation defence - Addition takes effect from date of amendment of writ - Limitation defence preserved

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 18 r 6, O 18 r 8

Result:

Application allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs:     Mr J C Giles
First Defendants           :     Mr S M Davies
Second Defendants       :     Mr S M Davies
Third Defendants          :     Mr S M Davies
Fourth Defendants        :     Mr S M Davies

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs:     Solomon Brothers
First Defendants           :     Blake Dawson Waldron
Second Defendants       :     Blake Dawson Waldron
Third Defendants          :     Blake Dawson Waldron
Fourth Defendants        :     Blake Dawson Waldron

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Brandsma and Crockett v Heindal [2002] WASCA 96
Homestyle Pty Ltd v City of Belmont [1999] WASCA 59
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189
Mabro v Eagle Star and British Dominions Insurance Co Ltd [1932] 1 KB 485
McLeod v WA Trustee Executor and Agency Company [1951] WALR 4
Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474
Patterson v Richards [1963] VR 179
Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam (1969) 2 MLJ 52
Pfeiffer v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; 203 CLR 503
Timor Transport Pty Ltd v Murlroam Pty Ltd (1992) 110 FLR 53
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
WMC Resources Ltd v Southern Cross Pipelines [2002] WASCA 308
Woodings v Stevenson (2001) 24 WAR 221

Case(s) also cited:

ABB Service Pty Ltd v Hetherington & Anor [2001] WASCA 417
Liff v Peasley [1980] 1 App ER 623
Silkline Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Challenge Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Sanderson); Library No 980610; 22 October 1998
Southern Cross Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd v Michael [2002] WASC 171
Vandervell Trustees Ltd v White & Ors [1971] AC 912

WHEELER J: By a chamber summons dated 25 October the plaintiffs seek orders that certain plaintiffs underlined red in the minute of amended writ of summons dated 25 October be added as plaintiffs in the action. Although it is not clear from the face of the chamber summons, the plaintiffs specified in argument before me that the addition was sought pursuant to O 18 r 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court ("RSC"). Further orders are sought to the effect that certain actions be consolidated with this action and that the minute of statement of claim dated 25 October 2002 stand as the statement…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bainbridge v Lawton

Details

AGLC: Bainbridge v Lawton [2002] WASC 293
Case: [2002] WASC 293
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in the case of Bainbridge v Lawton sought to add several plaintiffs to an existing action against multiple defendants. The defendants opposed the addition, arguing that it was not necessary for the complete determination of the matters in dispute and that it might allow some plaintiffs to circumvent limitation periods applicable to their claims. The central legal issue was whether the addition of plaintiffs could be permitted under O 18 r 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, given that it was arguable that the limitation periods had expired for some of the proposed plaintiffs. The court had to determine whether the addition of plaintiffs could be allowed under the rules without affecting the defendants' rights to raise limitation defences.

The court held that the addition of plaintiffs under O 18 r 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court could be permitted, and that the addition would take effect from the date of amendment of the writ. The court emphasized that limitation periods are substantive rules of law and cannot be circumvented by procedural rules. The court found that O 18 r 6 did not distinguish between plaintiffs and defendants, and that the addition of a plaintiff whose cause of action is statute-barred would not permit them to overcome a limitation provision relating to their cause of action. The court further noted that the rule was intended to ensure that all matters in dispute could be effectively and completely determined, and that the addition of plaintiffs in this case would serve that purpose by avoiding unnecessary complications and costs associated with separate actions.

The court also addressed the defendants' argument that the addition of plaintiffs would be unnecessary if they could issue fresh proceedings. The court found that the addition was necessary to achieve efficient case management and to avoid adding time and costs to the action. The court concluded that the addition of plaintiffs was necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute could be effectively and completely determined, and that the defendants' limitation defences would be preserved.

The court granted the plaintiffs' application to add the proposed plaintiffs to the action, allowed leave to amend the writ, and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause. The court adjourned the directions hearing to a later date and directed the defendants to file and serve their defence within a specified timeframe.

Orders