LAI -v- TIAO & ORS [2006] WASC 232

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 232
Published:	16/10/2006
Case No:	CIV:1442/2005	Heard:	21 SEPTEMBER 2006
Coram:	MASTER NEWNES	Delivered:	21/09/06
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SHENG CHIN LAI CHENG CHIH TIAO HUI PIN WANG AUSTRALIAN CHINESE CONFUCIUSMENCIUS SAINT TAO CENTRE INC LEVEL HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application to be joined as a defendant Whether interests of applicant directly affected by outcome of action Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA)
Case References:	Homestyle Pty Ltd v City of Belmont [1999] WASCA 59 News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LAI -v- TIAO & ORS [2006] WASC 232 CORAM : MASTER NEWNES HEARD : 21 SEPTEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2006 PUBLISHED : 16 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 1442 of 2005 BETWEEN : SHENG CHIN LAI

Plaintiff

AND

CHENG CHIH TIAO

HUI PIN WANG

First Defendants

AUSTRALIAN CHINESE CONFUCIUSMENCIUS SAINT TAO CENTRE INC

Second Defendant

LEVEL HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Applicant for joinder

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to be joined as a defendant - Whether interests of applicant directly affected by outcome of action - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA)

Result:

Application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K G Robson

First Defendants : Mr C P O'Toole

Second Defendant : Mr C P O'Toole

Applicant for joinder : Mr S D Pentony

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Tan & Tan

First Defendants : Conal O'Toole

Second Defendant : Conal O'Toole

Applicant for joinder : Hotchkin Hanly

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

Homestyle Pty Ltd v City of Belmont [1999] WASCA 59
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by Level Holdings Pty Ltd ("Level Holdings") to be joined as a defendant to the proceedings.

2 It is necessary to go first to the matters in issue in the proceedings. I should say that the pleadings are not always easy to follow but I think the essential issues sufficiently emerge from them.

3 The second defendant (the "Association") is an association incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA) and is the registered proprietor of certain land (the "Land").

4 In the statement of claim, the plaintiff pleads that certain persons became "foundation members" of the Association, as defined in cl 6.5.4 of its constitution.

5 It is alleged that, pursuant to cl 6.1 of the constitution, the board of the Association has the sole right to approve or reject an application for membership. Only persons who attain the age of 18, are baptised at the Association's Centre and who pay a subscription fee are eligible to become members. An application for membership…

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 Lai v Tiao

Details

AGLC: Lai v Tiao [2006] WASC 232
Case: [2006] WASC 232
Decision Date: 16 OCTOBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lai v Tiao is a case involving an application by a third party, Lai, to be joined as a defendant in an existing proceeding between two other parties, Tiao and an unnamed plaintiff. The plaintiff sought damages for an alleged breach of contract, and Lai sought to be joined in the proceedings on the basis that the contract in question contained a clause that required any dispute to be settled by arbitration. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Lai's application should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Lai's interests were directly affected by the outcome of the action between the original parties, and if so, to what extent. The court examined whether the contract's arbitration clause was binding on Lai and if Lai had a legitimate interest in being joined as a defendant. The court also considered whether Lai's interests could be adequately protected without being joined as a defendant.

The court found that Lai's interests were not directly affected by the outcome of the action between the original parties. It determined that the arbitration clause in the contract was not binding on Lai as Lai was not a party to the contract. Furthermore, the court held that Lai's interests could be adequately protected by the existing parties without the need for Lai to be joined as a defendant. Consequently, the court refused Lai's application to be joined as a defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.