Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2025] WASC 294

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   LYNN -v- GOODLINE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2025] WASC 294
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   22 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   22 JULY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   28 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1661 of 2025
BETWEEN:   ELA LYNN
Applicant
AND
GOODLINE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
First Respondent
BRIDGELINE PTY LTD
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Misjoinder of parties - Order 18 r 6(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - Whether second respondent unnecessarily joined as a party to an application for review of Magistrate's decision - Application that the second respondent cease to be a party to proceedings

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 18 r 6

Result:

Application that second respondent cease to be a party to proceedings granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	Mr S R Pack
Second Respondent	:	Mr P G Donovan

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	Wotton Kearnery Lawyers
Second Respondent	:	MDS Legal

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

Elovalis v Elovalis [2008] WASCA 141 (S)
Martin Bruce Jones as Receiver and Manager of Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd v Miami Waterfront Developments Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 483
Saffari v State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 77

MCGRATH J:

Introduction

This is an application by the second respondent for orders that it cease to be a party in the proceedings pursuant to O 18 r 6(2)(a) of the Rulesof the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC).
The applicant commenced these proceedings for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). The applicable procedure is provided by O 56A of the RSC. Order 56A r 2 requires that the application for a review order should be made ex parte. The applicant commenced the proceedings with the two named respondents.
On 25 June 2025, I ordered that the applicant serve the Originating Motion and supporting affidavits on the two respondents and that the matter return for a further hearing. It was necessary to require the appearance of the named respondents, for the reason that it was not possible to discern the history of the matter and the issues properly raised, in light of the applicant's affidavits and the absence of a transcript from the court below.
Subsequently, the second respondent made application that it cease to be a party to the proceedings. In support of that application, the second respondent relies upon the affidavit of Ms Radenti, legal practitioner, sworn 17 July 2025 and written submissions. The applicant relies upon her numerous filed affidavits, and submissions filed 19 July 2025. After hearing oral submissions at the hearing of this application by the second respondent, I made orders that, pursuant to O 18 r 6(2)(a) of the RSC, the second respondent cease to be a party to the proceedings and that the applicant pay…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 294
Decision Date: 28 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lynn, applied to the Supreme Court for a review of a decision made by a Magistrate. Lynn sought an order that the second respondent, Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd, cease to be a party to the proceedings, contending that they were unnecessarily joined. The first respondent was the original party to the proceeding before the Magistrate, while the second respondent was joined on the basis of being a related entity.

The court had to determine whether the second respondent was properly joined as a party to the application for review of the Magistrate's decision. The court was required to consider whether the second respondent was a necessary party to the proceedings and whether their presence was appropriate in the context of reviewing the Magistrate's decision. The court needed to decide whether the second respondent had an interest in the subject matter of the application and whether they were affected by the decision being reviewed.

The court found that the second respondent was not a necessary party to the application for review of the Magistrate's decision. The court held that the second respondent was joined without justification and that their presence in the proceedings was unnecessary. The court ordered that the second respondent cease to be a party to the proceedings, finding that their inclusion was improper. The court determined that the second respondent did not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, nor were they affected by the decision being reviewed.

The court ordered that Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd cease to be a party to the proceedings and that they pay the costs of the application. The court found that the second respondent was not a necessary party to the application and that their inclusion was without justification. The court's decision was based on the fact that the second respondent did not have an interest in the subject matter of the application and were not affected by the decision being reviewed. The court ordered that the second respondent pay the costs of the application, which were reasonable and necessary.

Orders