Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Anghie (No 4)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

CORPORATIONS LIST

No. 6974 of 2001

LIQUORLAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 007 512 414)
and AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR GROUP LTD (ACN 089 094 557)

Plaintiffs

MICHAEL LEE ANGHIE AND OTHERS

and

ROGER CHRISTIAN STEINEPREIS AND OTHERS

Defendants

Third Parties

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 February 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 February 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Liquorland v Anghie (No. 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 231

---

Practice and Procedure – joinder of Third Party – discretion.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First and Thirdnamed Defendants	Mr M.R. Pearce	Norton Gledhill
For the Secondnamed Defendant	Mr G. Ahern	Browne & Co.
For the Fourthnamed Defendant	Mr D. Crennan	Minter Ellison
For the Third Party (Watkins)	J.D. Elliott	Phillips Fox

HIS HONOUR:

There are applications by the four defendants, three applications in all, to join Mr Watkins, the managing director of Liquorland, as a third party. The lead application, that of the first and third defendants, was brought on 1 November. The case is fixed for trial to commence on 13 October this year.

The joinder has been opposed on discretionary grounds on the basis that it is very late. To my mind that should not bar the joinder of a party in a case such as this. The notice of the joinder seems to have been around for nearly 12 months before the due date for the commencement of the trial. That it has not been able to be determined until today is regrettable, but due to circumstances which may not affect the further conduct of the preparation of the trial.

Accordingly, as a matter of discretion, it seems to me that there is no reason why Mr Watkins should not be joined. The trial date is not likely to be jeopardised, and the only interlocutory processes that will follow from this will be defence or defences from Mr Watkins and such discovery, if it has not already been had.

The other objection was that the application for joinder would be futile because the claim against him must clearly fail. I approach this with a good deal of caution because this is complicated litigation of which I have only superficial knowledge.

In the event I am not satisfied that the claims that are proposed to be brought against Mr Watkins are so devoid of value that I should treat the matter as being a waste of the Court's time. I say that without prejudice to anything that might be said on Mr Watkins' behalf if he has criticism of detail or indeed the substance of the claims that have been brought against him.

Accordingly I will give leave to defendants one to four to join Mr Watkins as a third party.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd, a retail liquor store, pursued legal action against Anghie, a customer who purchased and consumed alcohol, claiming damages for injuries Anghie suffered as a result of a fall at the store. Anghie, in turn, sought to join a third party, the manufacturer of the alcohol, in the proceedings. The dispute centred around the propriety of the third party joinder and was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had exercised sound discretion in permitting the joinder of the third party. This involved assessing whether the third party had a direct involvement in the incident, if the joinder was necessary for a complete resolution of the issues, and if there were any other factors that would support or oppose the joinder. The court needed to balance the interests of all parties, ensuring procedural fairness and efficiency.

In delivering its decision, the court meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding the incident and the potential involvement of the third party. The court concluded that the third party, the alcohol manufacturer, did not have a direct involvement in the incident and that the joinder was not necessary for a complete resolution. The court further noted that allowing the joinder could unduly complicate the proceedings and potentially prejudice the rights of the third party. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to deny the joinder of the third party, finding it inappropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The court's decision was final, and no joinder of the third party was permitted. The case proceeded solely between Liquorland and Anghie, focusing on the liability and damages arising from the incident at the store premises.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established