Broderick v Evans Deakin & Company Pty Ltd

Case

[2010] QDC 327

13/08/2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

[2010] QDC 327

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 2520 of 2008

PETER WILLIAM BRODERICK Plaintiff
and
EVANS DEAKIN & COMPANY PTY LIMITED & Defendants
ORS
BRISBANE
..DATE 13/08/2010
ORDER
CATCHWORDS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, s 69, r 70

Circumstances in which of proposed new party fails to appear to resist the application to join tended to strengthen the application

1-1

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order under rule 69 of the
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in terms of the initialled draft
which has the effect of adding a fourth third party, Wallaby

Grip Ltd, at the behest of the second and third defendants.

10

They face the plaintiff's claim for damages arising out of his exposure to asbestos while employed at the old Evans Deakin shipyard at Kangaroo Point for 26 years from 1950.

The second and third defendants represent the employer. Third 20
party proceedings have been commenced against manufacturers
and suppliers of the relevant asbestos products.
The addition of the fourth third party arises because
information now available suggests that the second and third 30
third parties, which one can easily conclude are associated
companies, did not participate in the supply of relevant
products until about 1967.
The applicants, as required under rule 70 of the UCPR, have 40
served all existing parties and the proposed new fourth third
party.
All except for the last mentioned have indicated their consent
to the orders being made. No such consent has come from the 50
proposed fourth third party, which has not appeared today when
called, although served.
The firm of solicitors representing the second and third third
1-2 ORDER 60

1

parties have, in writing, confirmed their instructions to accept service, also that they lack instructions from the proposed new party to consent to the order.

In the circumstances, as outlined above, it is appropriate 10
that that order be made. One of the factors is that the
fourth third party has failed to take up the opportunity,
which it had, to appear today to contend that its addition as
a party would be inappropriate.
20

-----

30

40

50

1-3 ORDER 60
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0