Nelson v Credit Union Services Corporation
[2005] QDC 282
•23/08/2005
[2005] QDC 282
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No D2511 of 2001
| KAREN JOY NELSON | Plaintiff |
| and | |
| CREDIT UNION SERVICES CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED and CUSCAL SHARED SERVICES PTY LTD | First Defendant Second Defendant |
BRISBANE
..DATE 23/08/2005
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 69 - Property Law Act 1974 s 55 - unusual circumstances justifying joinder as an additional defendant of a university where the plaintiff was pursuing a PhD as trustee of an alleged promise by original defendants that they would continue employing her.
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff under rule 69 for the addition of Queensland University of Technology as a defendant in the action.
The requirement of service on QUT and the existing defendants under rule 70, sub-rule (2) is satisfied by the appearance of Mr Thorne whose firm acts for both of them. It has provided a letter which became Exhibit 1 which confirms an attitude of abiding the order of the Court so far as the first respondent - which appears to be the real target of the claim - is concerned.
In respect of QUT, Exhibit 2 is a copy of a letter of their solicitors, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, of the 22nd August 2005 indicating a similar attitude of abiding the Court's order. Notwithstanding the co-operative attitude shown, it is appropriate for the Court to satisfy itself that the joinder is appropriate.
The circumstances are unusual. The plaintiff was at once an employee of the first defendant and, perhaps, in some way of the second defendant too, and a student at QUT who had successfully pursued an honours degree.
She became a candidate for a PhD to be based on research which would take advantage of her employment. The existing and proposed defendants saw benefits accruing to them and were co-operative. Mr Reed, for the plaintiff, tells me that a research grant was obtained to fund the research. The plaintiff contends that the circumstances outlined involve special features in her claim for wrongful termination of her employment.
Her case is that she was entitled to have that employment continue until her research project was completed at the earliest.
The theory on which QUT is brought into the action is that it was the trustee of a promise of continuing employment made by the first defendant. Mr Reed says authorities indicate that it ought to be a party in the claim in those circumstances. There is a further basis relied on to enforce a promise involving a third party in section 55 of the Property Law Act 1974.
Joinder is appropriate. There will be an order in terms of the initialled draft.
‑‑‑‑‑
0
0
0