Briner v The Happy Herb Company and Ors (No.2)

In *Briner v The Happy Herb Company and Ors (No.2)*, the applicant, Briner, sought to join the second and third respondents, who were directors of the first respondent, The Happy Herb Company, to proceedings concerning alleged contraventions of the *Australian Consumer Law*. The dispute centred on whether these directors could be held personally liable for the company's alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. The matter came before Judge Driver in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient prima facie case to justify joining the directors as respondents to the proceeding. This involved determining whether there was a real question to be tried regarding the directors' alleged involvement in, or responsibility for, the contraventions of the *Australian Consumer Law* by The Happy Herb Company.

Judge Driver considered the principles governing the joinder of parties, particularly in the context of alleged contraventions of consumer protection legislation. The Court noted that to join a party, the applicant must demonstrate a serious question to be tried, not necessarily that they will succeed. The applicant relied on allegations that the directors were knowingly concerned in, or party to, the company's conduct. However, the Court found that the evidence presented by the applicant did not sufficiently establish that the directors were knowingly concerned in or party to the alleged contraventions, nor did it demonstrate a real question to be tried in that regard. The applicant's material was considered to be too vague and lacking in specific detail to meet the threshold for joinder.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the application to join the second and third respondents be dismissed.