Rigby & Kingston

In proceedings before Carew J of the Family Court of Australia, the husband had joined various third-party respondents to the proceedings. These third-party respondents applied to be removed as parties, arguing that the husband had failed to meet the essential requirements for joinder. The court had previously ordered the husband to file an Amended Initiating Application and Points of Claim, detailing the specific orders sought against each third party and the legal and factual basis for those claims. The husband had not complied with this order, asserting that a lack of disclosure from the third parties prevented him from particularising his claims, and that it was improper to join a party solely for the purpose of obtaining disclosure.

The court was required to determine whether the joinder of the third-party respondents was justified, whether the husband had complied with the court's previous orders, and whether the third-party respondents should be removed as parties. Additionally, the court considered applications for costs by the third-party respondents, an application by the wife to strike out certain paragraphs of the husband's affidavit, and the husband's application for further litigation funding from the wife.

Carew J found that the identified third-party respondents had been joined for an improper purpose and ordered their removal from the proceedings. The obligations of any remaining third-party respondents were stayed pending the husband's compliance with the order to particularise his case. The court also ordered the husband to pay the third-party respondents' costs fixed at $25,000, payable within seven days of the conclusion of the substantive proceedings, finding that while circumstances justified a costs order, they were not exceptional enough for indemnity costs. The wife's application to strike out paragraphs of the husband's affidavit was granted, with the objected-to paragraphs being struck out as irrelevant to the issues listed for trial. Finally, the husband's application for further litigation funding from the wife was dismissed, as the court found no justification for the wife to pay the husband's costs of pursuing claims against third parties, particularly when those claims remained unparticularised.