NOYE & ANOR -v- ROBBINS [2005] WASC 137

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 137
Case No:	CIV:2231/1999	Heard:	30 MAY & 1 JUNE 2005
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	1/06/05
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Action by co-plaintiffs severed Separate claims by each plaintiff ordered against each defendant separately Orders for separate legal representation for each plaintiff New pleadings ordered Adjournment of unrepresented plaintiff's actions on terms Joint trials for remaining plaintiff's actions against separate defendants
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN STEPHEN JOHN ROBBINS LYNETTE BERYL CRIMMINS
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Adjournment Joinder of causes of action by co-plaintiffs Severance Necessity for same series of transactions Conflict of interest of co-plaintiffs Separate legal representation Separate causes of action against different defendants Need for separate claims against each defendant Consolidation or joint trials
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Case References:	Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 64 Goold & Porter Pty Ltd v Housing Commission [1974] VR 102 Payne v Young (1980) 145 CLR 609 Re Matthews [1905] 2 Ch 460 Re Wright [1895] 2 Ch 747 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : NOYE & ANOR -v- ROBBINS [2005] WASC 137 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 30 MAY & 1 JUNE 2005 DELIVERED : 30 MAY & 1 JUNE 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 2231 of 1999 BETWEEN : JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE

LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN

Plaintiffs

AND

STEPHEN JOHN ROBBINS

Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 2490 of 2000 BETWEEN : JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE

LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN

Plaintiffs

AND

LYNETTE BERYL CRIMMINS

Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Adjournment - Joinder of causes of action by co-plaintiffs - Severance - Necessity for same series of transactions - Conflict of interest of co-plaintiffs - Separate legal representation - Separate causes of action against different defendants - Need for separate claims against each defendant - Consolidation or joint trials

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Action by co-plaintiffs severed

Separate claims by each plaintiff ordered against each defendant separately
Orders for separate legal representation for each plaintiff
New pleadings ordered
Adjournment of unrepresented plaintiff's actions on terms
Joint trials for remaining plaintiff's actions against separate defendants

Category: A

Representation:

CIV 2231 of 1999

Counsel:

First-named Plaintiff : Mr D P A Moen

Second-named Plaintiff : Mr G M Irving

Defendant : Mr M T KcKenna

Solicitors:

First-named Plaintiff : Michael Rennie

Second-named Plaintiff : George M Irving (

pro bono

)

Defendant : Hunt & Humphry

(Page 3)

CIV 2490 of 2000

Counsel:

First-named Plaintiff : Mr D P A Moen

Second-named Plaintiff : Mr G M Irving

Defendant : Mr J D Allanson

Solicitors:

First-named Plaintiff : Michael Rennie

Second-named Plaintiff : George Irving (

pro bono

)

Defendant : Lewis Blyth & Hooper

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

Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd (2002)…

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 Noye v Robbins

Details

AGLC: Noye v Robbins [2005] WASC 137
Case: [2005] WASC 137
Decision Date: 1 JUNE 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noye v Robbins involved two co-plaintiffs who jointly brought an action against multiple defendants. The dispute centred around whether the claims of the co-plaintiffs could be joined in a single proceeding, or if they required severance due to differences in the legal issues and the defendants against whom they were being asserted. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the co-plaintiffs' causes of action stemmed from the same series of transactions, and whether there was a conflict of interest that necessitated separate legal representation. Additionally, the court had to determine if the co-plaintiffs' separate claims against different defendants warranted severance, and whether separate claims against each defendant should be pursued independently or if consolidation or joint trials were appropriate.

The court found that the co-plaintiffs' causes of action did not arise from the same series of transactions and that there was a conflict of interest between them, thus requiring separate legal representation. The court concluded that because the co-plaintiffs had separate claims against different defendants, these claims needed to be pursued independently. The court ordered the severance of the co-plaintiffs' actions, mandated separate legal representation for each plaintiff, and directed the filing of new pleadings. Furthermore, the court ordered an adjournment for the actions of the unrepresented plaintiff on specific terms, and allowed for joint trials for the remaining plaintiff's actions against the separate defendants.

In summary, the court's decision effectively dismantled the joint action, requiring each co-plaintiff to pursue their claims separately against their respective defendants, with the possibility of joint trials for some actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Action by co-plaintiffs severed

Separate claims by each plaintiff ordered against each defendant separately

Orders for separate legal representation for each plaintiff

New pleadings ordered

Adjournment of unrepresented plaintiff's actions on terms

Joint trials for remaining plaintiff's actions against separate defendants

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.