Interchase Corporation Limited v Colliers Jardine (Qld) Pty Ltd

Interchase Corporation Limited (in liquidation) brought a claim against Colliers Jardine (Qld) Pty Ltd, Michael George Tidbold, Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) Pty Limited, and Brian Moffatt Waghorn for damages for negligence or breach of contract arising out of the negligent performance of valuations of the Myer Centre. The plaintiff sought to join FAI General Insurance Company Limited and HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd as additional defendants. These insurers had issued professional indemnity policies to the first and second defendants, respectively. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendants' negligence resulted in a loss of approximately $60 million. The insurers had refused to indemnify the first and second defendants, leading to the plaintiff's application to join the insurers to seek a declaration of their liability to indemnify the first and second defendants.

The legal issues before the court were whether the insurers could be joined as defendants and, if so, under what circumstances. The court considered whether the plaintiff had a real interest in obtaining a declaration against the insurers and whether joining the insurers would result in a multiplicity of proceedings. The court also examined whether the insurers had a true interest in opposing the declaration and whether the joinder of the insurers would avoid unnecessary costs and judicial resources.

The court found that the plaintiff had a real interest in obtaining a declaration of liability from the insurers, as it would avoid the costs of a further trial and streamline the litigation process. The court noted that the insurers had a true interest in opposing the declaration and that joining them would not result in a multiplicity of proceedings. The court followed the authority of JN Taylor Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and Anor v. Bond and Ors, which supported the joinder of insurers in similar circumstances. The court also considered the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and the limited judicial resources available.

The court concluded that joining the insurers would not unduly prolong the litigation and that any issues personal to the insured could be tried separately. The court granted the plaintiff's application to join FAI and HIH as defendants, allowing the plaintiff to seek a declaration of the insurers' liability to indemnify the first and second defendants. The court noted that other consequential orders would be considered in further submissions.