Scott v Brambles Security Services Ltd

In the case of Scott v Brambles Security Services Ltd, the plaintiff sought leave to discontinue her action against the second defendant, Westpac Banking Corporation, after the pleadings had closed. The application was opposed by the first defendant, Brambles Security Services Ltd, now known as Chubb Security Services Ltd. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to discontinue her action and if the first defendant should be allowed to issue a third party notice to the second defendant.

The court considered the circumstances under which the plaintiff sought to discontinue her action and the opposition from the first defendant. It was noted that the plaintiff had already made an unsuccessful attempt to discontinue the action against the first defendant, and the application to discontinue against the second defendant was made after the close of pleadings. The court acknowledged the potential prejudice to the first defendant if the plaintiff were allowed to discontinue the action against the second defendant, as it would result in the loss of a potential third party claim. However, the court also recognised the plaintiff's right to discontinue her action and the need to balance this right against the potential prejudice to the other parties. Ultimately, the court granted the plaintiff leave to discontinue her action against the second defendant and allowed the first defendant to issue a third party notice to the second defendant. The court also made orders for further disclosure by the second defendant and set out the procedural steps to be followed in relation to the third party proceedings.

The final orders of the court included granting the plaintiff leave to discontinue her action against Westpac Banking Corporation, abridging the time for the first defendant to file a third party notice, and allowing the first defendant to issue a third party notice and statement of claim against the second defendant. The court also made orders for further disclosure by the second defendant and set out the procedural steps to be followed in relation to the third party proceedings. The court reserved the question of costs.