Hillier v Martin (No 14)

In the matter of Hillier v Martin (No 14), the Federal Court considered an interlocutory application by the plaintiff, James Hillier, seeking to join additional parties to the proceedings and amend the statement of claim. The proposed respondents were Stephen Bradley Williams, Norman Waterhouse Lawyers (a firm) and Norman Waterhouse Lawyers Pty Ltd. The application was brought pursuant to rules 9.05 and 16.53 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The plaintiff's claims against the existing and proposed respondents included knowing assistance, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated an affirmative case against the proposed respondents and if the claims were properly pleaded. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there had been an undue delay in bringing the application.

The court found that the joinder of the proposed respondents, even for reasons of recovery, was permissible under rule 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules. The plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case against the proposed respondents, and the claims were properly pleaded. The court acknowledged that there might have been a delay in bringing the application, but this did not preclude the joinder if the other criteria were satisfied. The court granted the application, allowing the plaintiff to join the additional respondents and amend the statement of claim accordingly. The court noted that the plaintiff would need to plead how Ms Martin represented the matters in the proposed fourth amended statement of claim.

The final orders of the court were that leave was granted to the plaintiff to join Stephen Bradley Williams, Norman Waterhouse Lawyers (a firm), and Norman Waterhouse Lawyers Pty Ltd as respondents to the proceedings, pursuant to rule 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules. Additionally, leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend the third amended statement of claim to the terms of annexure JH-77 (proposed fourth amended statement of claim), subject to the plaintiff pleading the representation by Ms Martin. The court reserved the question of costs for further hearing between the parties.