Legal Research
Cases
Jones v Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd

Jones v Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2012] WASC 483 7 December 2012

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: MARTIN BRUCE JONES as Receiver and Manager of Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd -v- MIAMI WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2012] WASC 483

CORAM: EDELMAN J

HEARD: 26 NOVEMBER 2012 AND ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 7 DECEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: COR 167 of 2012

BETWEEN: MARTIN BRUCE JONES as Receiver and Manager of Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd
First named First Plaintiff
ANDREW JOHN SAKER as Receiver and Manager of Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
Second named First Plaintiff
DOS FOXTROT LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND
MIAMI WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
First Defendant
STEPHEN LESLEY REIFFER
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Misjoinder - Whether director improperly or unnecessarily joined as a party to originating process for declarations including declarations of the validity of appointment of receivers - Director properly joined

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 418A, s 429
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 18 r 6
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 25(6)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First named First Plaintiff    :     Mr M L Bennett
Second named First Plaintiff :     Mr M L Bennett
Second Plaintiff     :     Mr M L Bennett
First Defendant     :     Mr J Thomson SC
Second Defendant     :     Mr J Thomson SC

Solicitors:

First named First Plaintiff    :     Bennett & Co
Second named First Plaintiff :     Bennett & Co
Second Plaintiff     :     Bennett & Co
First Defendant     :     Tottle Partners
Second Defendant     :     Tottle Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd [1956] 1 QB 357
Homestyle Pty Ltd v City of Belmont [1999] WASCA 59
John Alexander's Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd [2010] HCA 19; (2010) 241 CLR 1
Jones v Narrogin Beef Producers Pty Ltd [No 2] [2010] WASC 365
Lois Nominees Pty Ltd v Hill [2011] WASC 53
Morrell v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd [1999] WASCA 250; (1999) 21 WAR 451
Newhart Developments Ltd v Co-Operative Commercial Ltd [1978] 1 QB 814
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd [1996] FCA 870; (1996) 64 FCR 410
Oil Basins Ltd v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 60; (1993) 178 CLR 643
Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Lois Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 186
Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; (1978) 142 CLR 1
Tiao v Lai [No 2] [2010] WASCA 189
Woodings v Stevenson [2001] WASC 174; (2001) 24 WAR 221

EDELMAN J:

Introduction

This is an interlocutory application in the main proceedings. The main proceedings concern a challenge to the appointment of the first plaintiffs as receivers of the first defendant (Miami Waterfront). For convenience I will describe the first plaintiffs as the Receivers. The Receivers and a creditor (DOS Foxtrot) are seeking declarations under s 418A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ancillary orders, including declarations that the Receivers were validly appointed.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jones v Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jones v Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 483
Case: [2012] WASC 483
Decision Date: 7 DECEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Jones, and the defendant, Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from the appointment of receivers over the company's assets and the validity of this appointment. Jones sought declarations including the validity of the appointment of receivers, and Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd argued that the director, who was also a party to the proceedings, had been improperly or unnecessarily joined. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue that the court needed to address was whether the director of Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd was properly joined as a party to the originating process. The court had to determine whether the director's joinder was necessary and appropriate given the nature of the declarations sought by Jones. The court also needed to consider whether the joinder of the director was an abuse of process.

The court found that the director was properly joined as a party to the proceedings. The court held that the director's joinder was necessary because the declarations sought by Jones directly implicated the director's role in the company's affairs. The court found that the director's involvement in the appointment of receivers was relevant to the validity of those appointments, and therefore, his joinder was appropriate. The court further held that there was no evidence of an abuse of process in joining the director as a party. The court rejected the argument that the director's joinder was improper or unnecessary.

The final orders of the court were that the director of Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd was properly joined as a party to the proceedings, and the declarations sought by Jones would proceed against both the company and the director. The court dismissed the application to strike out the director as a party.

Orders