Rich v Westpac Banking Corporation

The appeal concerned an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory order made by the court below. The applicant, Rich, sought to join Westpac Banking Corporation as a defendant in proceedings brought against him by a plaintiff. Rich contended that Westpac had acted in concert with the plaintiff and that he had an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claims, which involved allegations of fraud.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave to appeal should be granted, and if so, whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant leave to join Westpac as a defendant. This involved considering whether Rich had established an arguable defence and whether the joinder of Westpac was necessary for the determination of all questions in the proceedings. The Court also considered whether fresh evidence sought to be adduced on appeal could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at first instance.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in refusing leave to join Westpac. It was held that Rich had not demonstrated an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claims, nor had he shown that the joinder of Westpac was necessary for the proper determination of the proceedings. The Court also determined that the fresh evidence sought to be adduced on appeal could have been obtained earlier and therefore refused its admission.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.