MINPROC LTD -v- KILLINGER & ORS [2001] WASCA 213

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 213
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:61/2001	Heard:	21 JUNE 2001
Coram:	STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J PIDGEON AUJ	Delivered:	25/07/01
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MINPROC LTD (ACN 008 992 694) WILLIAM FREDERICK KILLINGER ROBERT JOHN WILDE JESSE KAVANAUGH TAYLOR NEVILLE THOMAS CLEARY JOHN ROBERT CAVILL PETER FRANCIS ANDERTON
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Joinder of parties Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947, s 7(1)(c) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 19 r 2
Case References:	Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801 The World Beauty [1970] P 144 CA Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 AMP Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd v Dixon [1982] VR 833 Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1 Barclays Bank v Tom [1923] 1 KB 221 Daniels v AWA Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 438 Edwards v Edwards [1913] VLR 30 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Morrell v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1999) 21 WAR 451 Permanent Building Society v Wheeler (1993) 11 WAR 187 Pioneer Concrete (NT) Pty Ltd v Watkins Ltd (1983) 48 ALR 365

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : MINPROC LTD -v- KILLINGER & ORS [2001] WASCA 213 CORAM : STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

PIDGEON AUJ

HEARD : 21 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 25 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : FUL 61 of 2001 BETWEEN : MINPROC LTD (ACN 008 992 694)

Appellant (Plaintiff)

AND

WILLIAM FREDERICK KILLINGER

First Respondent (First Defendant)

ROBERT JOHN WILDE

Second Respondent (Third Defendant)

JESSE KAVANAUGH TAYLOR

Third Respondent (Fourth Defendant)

NEVILLE THOMAS CLEARY

Fourth Respondent (Fifth Defendant)

JOHN ROBERT CAVILL

Fifth Respondent (Second Defendant)

PETER FRANCIS ANDERTON

Sixth Respondent (Third Party)

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Joinder of parties - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947, s 7(1)(c)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 19 r 2

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr M L Bennett

First Respondent (First Defendant) : Mr W S Martin QC &

Mr A W Willinge

Second Respondent (Third Defendant) : Mr K J Martin QC &

Ms S J Unwin

Third Respondent (Fourth Defendant) : Mr K J Martin QC &

Ms S J Unwin

Fourth Respondent (Fifth Defendant) : Mr K J Martin QC &

Ms S J Unwin

Fifth Respondent (Second Defendant) : No appearance

Sixth Respondent (Third Party) : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Bennett & Co

First Respondent (First Defendant) : Blake Dawson Waldron

Second Respondent (Third…

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.

Continue reading Minproc Ltd v Killinger

Details

AGLC: Minproc Ltd v Killinger [2001] WASCA 213
Case: [2001] WASCA 213
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Minproc Ltd v Killinger, the parties involved were Minproc Ltd, an engineering and mining equipment company, and Killinger, an individual who had been employed by Minproc Ltd. The dispute centred on issues related to the employment contract and the subsequent termination of Killinger's employment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter and, if so, whether the appropriate parties had been joined to the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine if Killinger should have been joined as a party to the proceedings or if the matter could proceed in his absence. This issue turned on whether Killinger's claims against Minproc Ltd were independent of the claims made by the other plaintiffs in the proceeding.

The court found that, while it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, the appropriate parties had not been joined to the proceeding. The court reasoned that Killinger's claims were not entirely independent of the other plaintiffs' claims. Killinger's claims were related to the same factual matrix and legal issues as those of the other plaintiffs, and his presence was necessary to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute. Consequently, the court held that Killinger should have been joined as a party to the proceeding. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the court, upholding the decision that the proper parties had not been joined to the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.