Conridge v Lorenzo Flammia Trading as Manna and Flammia Solicitors

In the matter of Conridge v Lorenzo Flammia Trading as Manna and Flammia Solicitors, the defendants sought to have the proceedings summarily dismissed or the originating process struck out on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to join a person who was jointly entitled to the same relief. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate, in the circumstances, to 'otherwise order' and dispense with the rule requiring the plaintiff to join the jointly entitled person to the proceedings. The jointly entitled person did not wish to be joined, and their cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the jointly entitled person was not a necessary party. The purpose of the rule was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that all necessary parties were joined. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's deliberate non-compliance with the rule warranted an otherwise ordering pursuant to rule 6.20(2) that the jointly entitled person not be joined as a party.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to join the jointly entitled person was deliberate and amounted to non-compliance with the rule. However, the court also found that the jointly entitled person's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, and they were not a necessary party. The court considered the purpose of the rule, which was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure that all necessary parties were joined. The court held that it was appropriate, in the circumstances, to otherwise order pursuant to rule 6.20(2) that the jointly entitled person not be joined as a party. The court also considered the costs of the proceedings and found that the ordinary rule applied.