Duke Group (in Liq) v Pilmer & Ors (No 5) No. Scciv-92-1874

The matter before the South Australian Supreme Court involved Duke Group (in Liq) as the plaintiff and Pilmer and others as defendants. The dispute centred around the application of the plaintiff to intervene in a case concerning contribution orders between the defendants. The plaintiff argued that it should be heard as an intervener because it had reached a settlement with one of the defendants, Quilty, and provided him with an indemnity. The plaintiff claimed that the decision of the Full Court could adversely impact on it due to this indemnity. The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had standing to apply to have the hearing reopened, and if not, whether it should be allowed to intervene as an intervener in support of the application. The court found that the indemnity did not give the plaintiff standing on the application and that there was no good reason to allow it to be heard as an intervener. The court held that all relevant submissions could be made by counsel for Quilty and Somes. The court reasoned that the indemnity provided by the plaintiff to Quilty did not confer standing to the plaintiff in the matter concerning the contribution orders between the defendants. Furthermore, the court was of the view that allowing the plaintiff to intervene would not serve any useful purpose, as the defendants' counsel were already adequately representing the interests of all parties involved. The court concluded that the plaintiff's potential interest in the outcome of the case did not warrant its intervention. The court dismissed the application for the plaintiff to intervene in the case and upheld the decision not to reopen the hearing of the appeal against the contribution orders.