PROCEDURE - joinder of parties - amendment - addition of new defendants - where proceedings to be dismissed against original defendant after final hearing - where relitigation of all issues would be required - joinder refused.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
Brereton J
Thursday 8 December 2005
1479/05 Tony Khattar & 1 Or v Valerie Claire Wiese
JUDGMENT (ex tempore)
1 HIS HONOUR: By motion filed in Court today and made returnable instanter, the plaintiffs, Tony Khattar and Damien Dibb seek orders which would have the effect that the proceedings against the only present defendant, Valerie Claire Wiese, be dismissed, but that Mary Hay and Norman Hay, the proprietors of 118 Jersey Road, and Faye Lorainne Griffith and Graeme Griffith, the proprietors of 118A Jersey Road, be added as defendants.
2 The proceedings were adjourned to today, as a result of judgment which I gave on 7 October 2005 [Khattar v Wiese (2005) NSWSC 1014], refusing at that stage to impose an easement, pursuant to Conveyancing Act, 1919 (NSW), s 88K, on Mrs Wiese’s land, in order to consider whether it was appropriate to permit the plaintiffs to make a further application in these proceedings, and if so whether additional parties should be joined, and what directions should be made if there was to be a further hearing. I indicated that if I came to a contrary view on those matters I would dismiss the summons. It is in the light of that that the present motion is filed.
3 The plaintiffs have, at least not yet, obtained the Council's approval to a variation of the deferred development consent which would accommodate the easement which they sought in these proceedings. They have determined that rather than proceed to seek an easement over the land of Mrs Wiese, they will instead now seek an easement over 118 and 118A Jersey Road.
4 In the judgment given on 7 October 2005 I found that such an easement would be one “having the same effect” for the purposes of Conveyancing Act, s 88K as the easement sought in these proceedings. But that is not to say that it is the same easement; far from it. It will, if granted, be an easement over different land, held by different proprietors.
5 The proposed additional defendants have not been given notice of…
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 Khattar v Wiese (No. 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Khattar v Wiese (No. 2) [2005] NSWSC 1300
Case
[2005] NSWSC 1300
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The proceedings in Khattar v Wiese (No. 2) involved a dispute concerning the joinder of additional parties to an existing legal action. The original defendant, Wiese, had undergone a final hearing, leading to a decision that the proceedings against him would be dismissed. The plaintiff, Khattar, sought to amend the proceedings to include new defendants, seeking to hold them accountable for the same issues. The court was tasked with determining whether it was appropriate to join the new parties to the proceedings, given that the original defendant had already been through a final hearing and relitigation of all issues would be required.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was just and convenient to allow the amendment to the proceedings to include new defendants. The court had to consider the principles governing amendments to pleadings and the joinder of parties, particularly in light of the finality of the proceedings against the original defendant. The court also had to assess the potential prejudice to the new defendants if the amendment were allowed, as well as the implications for the efficiency and fairness of the judicial process.
In determining the matter, the court held that the addition of new defendants would necessitate the relitigation of all issues, which would not be just or convenient given that the original defendant had already been through a final hearing. The court emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the potential for significant prejudice to the new defendants if required to defend the same issues a second time. Consequently, the court refused the plaintiff's application to amend the proceedings to include the new defendants. The court concluded that allowing the amendment would undermine the principles of fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.
No further orders were made by the court. The proceedings against the original defendant remained dismissed, and the plaintiff was not permitted to add new defendants to the action.