Manny v Commonwealth of Australia; Manny v University of Canberra

The case of Manny v Commonwealth of Australia; Manny v University of Canberra involved the plaintiff, Mr Manny, who was seeking to join several additional plaintiffs to a proceeding he had commenced against the Commonwealth and the University of Canberra. The plaintiff sought to bring derivative proceedings on behalf of companies that had been deregistered and businesses that had unregistered business names. The Federal Court was required to determine whether these additional plaintiffs could be joined to the proceeding and if Mr Manny had the requisite leave to bring derivative proceedings on behalf of the companies that had been reinstated from liquidation.

The court had to decide whether the deregistered companies and unregistered business names could be joined to the proceeding and if Mr Manny could be granted leave to bring derivative proceedings on their behalf. The court had to consider the legal personality of the deregistered companies and unregistered business names and whether they could sue or be sued. The court also had to consider whether Mr Manny should be granted leave to bring derivative proceedings on behalf of the companies in liquidation.

The court found that neither deregistered companies nor unregistered business names have separate legal personality. A company ceases to exist on deregistration and a registered business name is not a legal person. Therefore, the sixth to ninth plaintiffs, being deregistered companies and unregistered business names, could not be joined to the proceeding. The court also found that Mr Manny should not be granted leave to bring derivative proceedings on behalf of the companies in liquidation as the liquidator, not Mr Manny, was the person seeking to pursue a cause of action against either the Commonwealth or the University. The court found that the preliminary question of whether Mr Manny should be granted leave to bring derivative proceedings on behalf of the companies was not formally sought and was not properly before the court.

The court dismissed the application to join the sixth to ninth plaintiffs to the proceeding and made no order in respect of the leave to bring derivative proceedings on behalf of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs. The court also found that the strike out application by the University was premature as the issue of joinder had not yet been determined.