Brennand v Hartung

The case of Brennand v Hartung involved an application by the plaintiffs to join a third defendant, Felicity Lewer, to their existing claim and to add a new cause of action for money lent. The original defendants were being sued for defamation, contract, and negligence. The plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to include these additional claims and defendants. The application was brought before the court under the Court Procedures Rules 2006, specifically rule 21, which governs the amendment of pleadings and the addition of parties. The court was required to decide whether the additional defendant could be joined, and if the new cause of action for money lent should be included in the same action. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their pleadings in relation to the defamation claim further.

The court found that the causes of action in contract and negligence were unlikely to succeed and were therefore doomed to fail. It was determined that the money claim should not be joined in the same action as the other causes of action. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend their pleadings in relation to the defamation claim further. The court reasoned that allowing the amendment would cause substantial injustice to the defendants and would not be in the interests of justice. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not shown any reasonable prospect of success on the new cause of action for money lent. Consequently, the application to join the further defendant was refused, and the action was dismissed.

The court made several orders to finalise the proceedings. Firstly, the plaintiffs' application to join Felicity Lewer as a defendant was dismissed. Secondly, the action was dismissed with the defendants' costs being paid by the plaintiffs. Lastly, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the proposed third defendant Felicity Lewer. These orders reflect the court's determination that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit and that allowing further amendments and the joining of additional defendants would not serve the interests of justice.