Raja v DARUL-IMAN (WA) Incorporated - [2011] WASCA 79

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: RAJA -v- DARUL-IMAN (WA) INCORPORATED [2011] WASCA 79

CORAM: PULLIN JA
HALL J

HEARD: 10 MARCH 2011

DELIVERED : 10 MARCH 2011

PUBLISHED : 8 APRIL 2011

FILE NO/S: CACV 120 of 2010

BETWEEN: FAYYAZ AHMAD RAJA
Appellant
AND
DARUL-IMAN (WA) INCORPORATED
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MASTER SANDERSON
Citation  :DARUL-IMAN (WA) INCORPORATED -v- RAJA [2010] WASC 299
File No  :CIV 1241 of 2005

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to join and substitute party - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr R J Nash
Respondent:     No appearance
Intervener:     Mr R G S Harrison for Mr Abdullah Ahmad Saaid

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Arns & Associates
Respondent:     Tottle Partners
Intervener:     Tottle Partners

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

Nil

REASONS OF THE COURT: An application was made by Abdullah Ahmad Saaid, who is not a party to the proceedings. He sought an order that he be joined as a party to the appeal to act as an intervener on behalf of the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing the court ordered that the application be dismissed. These are the reasons for making that order.
The background is as follows. The respondent (the association) sought specific performance of a contract whereby the appellant (Mr Raja) had agreed to sell land to the association. At the time Mr Raja entered into the contract, he was a member of the association and a Mr Ahmed was his brother. Mr Ahmed claimed that he was the president of the association pursuant to a resolution passed at an annual general meeting on 3 October 2004. He claimed that the association was controlled by persons elected at that meeting. That group (the Ahmed group) includes the appellant.
This group was and is opposed by a group associated with a Mr Omar and Mr Abdullah (the Omar group). The Omar group maintains that the association is controlled by persons who were elected at a general meeting on 10 October 2004. Members of the Omar group who claim to be the office bearers of the association entered into a retainer agreement with Tottle Partners on behalf of the association and instructed Tottle Partners to commence proceedings against Mr Raja for specific performance, which they did.
Mr Raja applied for an order from Master Sanderson striking out or staying the proceedings on the basis that the proceedings were in effect, an abuse of process, because the persons instructing the association's lawyers were not office holders of the association and, therefore, had no authority to instruct Tottle Partners to conduct the proceedings or to issue process.
The master in his reasons for decision said that:
A party challenging a retainer has the onus of establishing on the evidence a lack of authority. That means in this case, the defendant must produce sufficient evidence to negative…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Raja v DARUL-IMAN (WA) Incorporated and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] WASCA 79
Decision Date: 8 APRIL 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raja v DARUL-IMAN (WA) Incorporated involved an application by the defendant to join a new party and substitute another party. The dispute was before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Raja, had initially sued the defendant, DARUL-IMAN (WA) Incorporated, over an alleged breach of contract. The defendant sought to add a new party to the proceedings and substitute another party, both of which would significantly alter the scope and nature of the litigation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed joinder and substitution of parties were permissible under the applicable rules of court. The court had to consider the timing of the application, the potential prejudice to the plaintiff, and whether the new parties had a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Additionally, the court examined the relevance and necessity of the new parties in resolving the dispute.

The court held that the application to join and substitute parties was not permissible. The timing of the application was deemed late, and the court found that it would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff, who had not had the opportunity to prepare for or respond to the claims against the new parties. Furthermore, the court concluded that the new parties did not have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation, rendering their inclusion unnecessary and potentially disruptive. The court's decision was based on its discretion under the rules of court to manage the proceedings fairly and efficiently.

As a result, the application to join and substitute parties was dismissed. The court maintained the original parties to the litigation, focusing on the dispute between Mr. Raja and DARUL-IMAN (WA) Incorporated. This outcome ensured that the litigation proceeded with the parties who were directly involved in the contractual agreement at issue.

Orders