Trans Petroleum (Australia) Pty Ltd v United Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd [No 2]

Trans Petroleum (Australia) Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought to join a new defendant, United Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd, in a legal dispute that had already been initiated against the latter. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the plaintiff aimed to address claims related to the alleged removal of bowsers and pump systems from a petrol station. The plaintiff sought to amend the writ to include the new defendant on the grounds that the existing defendant had failed to return certain equipment as required by the lease agreement, which the plaintiff argued created a duty of care to preserve the equipment.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the plaintiff could join the new defendant and whether the proposed additional defendant's rights or liabilities would be directly affected by any orders made in the action. The plaintiff argued that the proposed additional defendant, having knowledge of the duty of care arising from the lease, had failed to take reasonable care and thus could be held liable. However, the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim did not include any allegation of a breach of a duty to take reasonable care, which is essential under the Civil Liability Act for a claim to fall within the purview of the statute. The court had to determine if the plaintiff could still join the new defendant despite this omission.

The court concluded that the plaintiff could not join the new defendant because the proposed amended statement of claim did not plead a breach of a duty to take reasonable care, which is a prerequisite for the application of section 5AN of the Civil Liability Act. The court noted that the phrase 'all matters in dispute' should be given a broad interpretation but emphasized the necessity of a direct effect on the proposed defendant's rights or liabilities. Since the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim did not allege a breach of such a duty, the court found that it was not necessary to join the new defendant. The court also highlighted that the proposed amended writ did not contain any allegations of a breach of a duty of care, which is a necessary element for the plaintiff's proposed first cause of action. Consequently, the court ruled against allowing the new defendant to be joined.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application to join the new defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff was not permitted to add the new defendant as a party without their written consent. The court further noted that the plaintiff's proposed amended writ did not include any allegations of a breach of a duty of care, which is a necessary element for the plaintiff's proposed first cause of action.