Messana & Messana

The parties to the case, Messana & Messana, were a married couple who separated in early 2020. The wife filed an Initiating Application seeking an adjustment to the value of 60 per cent of the available property in her favour, while the husband filed a Response seeking an adjustment to the value of 60 per cent of the available property in his favour. The court was required to decide whether certain additional respondents should be joined to the proceedings and whether the husband's application for joinder should be allowed.

The court considered whether the proposed additional respondents should be joined to the proceedings. It found that the husband's application for joinder would be refused in relation to certain entities as there was no plausible reason to accept the husband's brothers' contentions that these entities had no realisable assets. However, the court found that the husband's application for joinder of certain other entities should be allowed as they were necessary for the court to completely and finally determine all matters in dispute.

The court found that the husband's application for joinder of the husband's brothers and certain corporate entities in which they held interests should be allowed as they were necessary for the court to completely and finally determine all matters in dispute. The court found that the husband's brothers had a cause of action recognisable at law against the third parties and that the joinder of these parties was necessary to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The court also found that the husband's application for joinder of certain other entities should be refused as there was no plausible reason to accept the husband's brothers' contentions that these entities had no realisable assets.

The court refused the husband's application for joinder of certain entities and allowed the husband's application for joinder of the husband's brothers and certain corporate entities in which they held interests. The husband's brothers and the proposed additional respondents in the second category were put on notice of their risk as to costs in the event that the assertions of the husband's brothers as to the underlying value of these entities proved inaccurate.