Williams v Grainger - [2001] WASC 53

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WILLIAMS & ANOR -v- GRAINGER & ORS [2001] WASC 53

CORAM: MASTER BREDMEYER

HEARD: 1 FEBRUARY 2001

DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1171 of 2000

BETWEEN: RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS
First Plaintiff
MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS
Second Plaintiff
AND
GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER
First Defendant
JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Second Defendant
WESFARMERS DALGETY REAL ESTATE (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 009 238 993)
WESFARMERS DALGETY LTD (ACN 008 743 217)
Third Defendants

Catchwords:

Parties - Application to join a plaintiff - Reasons for costs orders

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application allowed subject to conditions

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr M A Blundell
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr M A Blundell
First Defendant             :     Mr M G Clay
Second Defendant         :     Mr M G Clay
Third Defendants          :     Mr A S Stavrianou

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Solomon Brothers
Second Plaintiff            :     Solomon Brothers
First Defendant             :     Martin De Haas
Second Defendant         :     Martin De Haas
Third Defendants          :     Julian Lentzner

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

Williams & Anor v Grainger & Ors [2001] WASC 10

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MASTER BREDMEYER: I published reasons in this action, Williams & Anor v Grainger & Ors [2001] WASC 10, on 19 January 2001. I then heard argument on the orders which should flow from my reasons. I now publish those orders in a separate minute. In hearing that argument Mr Clay, for the first and second defendants, argued that my reasons had failed to deal with the plaintiffs' application for the joinder of Gale Williams. Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that I had dealt with it at [6] and [49] of my reasons. I undertook to reconsider the matter, which I now do.
On 22 August 2000 the plaintiffs applied for entry of this action into the Expedited List to join Gale Curtis Williams as the third plaintiff and for leave to further amend the statement of claim and the writ of summons in terms of minutes filed herewith. They filed a detailed affidavit of Mark Curtis Williams, sworn 18 August 2000 in support. That application was heard by Templeman J on 22 August 2000 and he dismissed the application. It is apparent from his reasons that he only considered the question of entry into the Expedited List. I interpret his order as only relating to that. I consider that the rest of the chamber summons is alive. A further affidavit of Mark Curtis Williams, in opposition to an application for summary judgment and in support of the application for joinder of additional plaintiff, was sworn on 24 October 2000. With the initial application was a minute of reamended writ of summons dated 18 August 2000 naming Gale Curtis Williams as the third plaintiff. That minute was further amended in a minute of reamended summons of 6 November 2000. The indorsement of claim on that minute reads as follows:
"The ~~plaintiff's~~ plaintiffs' claim is as trustee for the Brown Trust (with respect to the…

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.

Continue reading Williams v Grainger

Details

AGLC: Williams v Grainger [2001] WASC 53
Case: [2001] WASC 53
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in Williams v Grainger were heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and the defendant opposed the claim on the basis of an alleged failure to comply with procedural requirements. The plaintiff also made an application to join a second plaintiff, which was opposed by the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the second plaintiff could be added to the proceedings and, if so, whether costs orders should be made against the parties involved in the application.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the second plaintiff's claim was properly joined to the existing proceedings and, if so, whether the application to join was made in accordance with the applicable procedural rules. The court also needed to consider whether costs should be awarded to either party in relation to the application to join the second plaintiff. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant procedural rules and applying them to the specific circumstances of this case.

In determining the application to join the second plaintiff, the court held that the joinder was permissible under the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Rules. The court found that the application was made within a reasonable time and that there were no substantial grounds to oppose the joinder. However, the court also found that the plaintiff's application was not made in accordance with the procedural requirements, resulting in costs being awarded against the plaintiff. The defendant's opposition to the joinder was found to be unreasonable, and costs were awarded against the defendant in relation to the application.

The court ordered that the second plaintiff be joined to the proceedings and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application to join the second plaintiff. The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the defendant's opposition to the joinder. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when making applications in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders