Worthington v Worthington [No 2]

The appeal before the court in Worthington v Worthington [No 2] concerns an application by Michelle Worthington to add her mother, Allana Worthington, as a co-plaintiff, amend her writ, and have the liability issues tried separately from the damages/quantum issues. The dispute arises from an alleged agreement between Michelle, Allana, Harold Worthington, and Catherine Worthington regarding the occupancy of a shed on land known as 'Heaslane Court'. Michelle claims that she and Allana were promised the right to reside in the shed free of charge for as long as they wished, in return for assisting Harold and Catherine in maintaining the property and caring for Harold, who was ill with cancer at the time. The property passed entirely to Catherine upon Harold's death, and Catherine subsequently demanded that Michelle and Allana vacate the shed. Michelle argues that it would be unconscionable for Catherine not to recognise her beneficial interest in the property through a constructive trust.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Michelle had the right to add her mother as a co-plaintiff, amend her writ to reflect the new statement of claim, and separate the trial of liability from that of damages/quantum. The court considered the nature of the alleged agreement as a vague family arrangement and whether it could be enforced. The court also had to assess whether the proposed amendments to the statement of claim would introduce new issues that could prejudice the defendant, Catherine.

The court found that the action was characterised as a 'vague family arrangement case', and the alleged agreement was not sufficiently clear or formal to be enforceable. The court denied Michelle's application to add her mother as a co-plaintiff, as it would significantly alter the nature of the dispute and potentially prejudice the defendant. Regarding the proposed amendments to the writ, the court found that they introduced new issues that could prejudice the defendant and were therefore not permissible. Lastly, the court ruled against separating the trial of liability from that of damages/quantum, as it would not serve the interests of justice to do so in this case.

The court ultimately dismissed Michelle's applications, leaving the case to proceed with the existing parties and pleadings. The final orders reflect the court's decisions on each of the applications, maintaining the status quo and preventing any further amendments that could prejudice the defendant.