Lottwo Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Tudo

In Lottwo Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Tudo, the Supreme Court of South Australia addressed the issue of joinder of parties in a legal action concerning the distribution of surplus funds from a property sale. The case involved the purchase of several properties by various entities, including the appellant, Lottwo Pty Ltd. Following defaults on loans, the bank exercised its power of sale, and surplus funds remained after settling the borrowers' liabilities. These surplus funds were deposited into court in separate actions concerning each property. Three individuals, Moses, Tudo, and Rose, sought to be joined as plaintiffs in the action relating to Lottwo Pty Ltd's property, asserting claims of resulting trust and purchaser's lien over the surplus funds. The Master granted their application, and Lottwo Pty Ltd appealed against this decision.

The central legal issues in the case were whether each of the applicants had an arguable claim to a proprietary interest in the surplus funds and if there was sufficient evidence to establish a resulting trust or purchaser's lien. The court needed to determine whether the applicants provided their monies as purchasers and if their claims were sufficiently pled or evidenced to warrant their inclusion as plaintiffs in the proceedings. The applicants argued that they had paid substantial sums towards the purchase price of the property, which should give rise to a resulting trust in their favour.

The court found that each applicant had established an arguable case for a resulting trust based on the evidence that they had contributed funds towards the purchase price. The Master's decision to join them as plaintiffs was upheld because there was at least prima facie evidence that their monies were used as part of the purchase price, and no evidence contradicted this claim. The Master concluded that the applicants had an arguable case of a resulting trust, and it was convenient for them to be joined as plaintiffs. The court did not require detailed pleadings at that stage, as the existence and extent of the trust would be matters for trial. The Master also found that Tudo's claim of a purchaser's lien was arguable, providing another reason for joining him as a plaintiff.

The Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal, affirming the Master's decision to allow Moses, Tudo, and Rose to be joined as plaintiffs in the proceedings. The court held that the applicants had made out an arguable case for a resulting trust and that there was sufficient evidence to support their claims. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the Master's decision was dismissed, and the applicants were permitted to remain as plaintiffs in the proceedings.