CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 91

CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 91

There is an arguable possibility the rights or liabilities of the surveyors and certifiers may be directly affected if orders sought by JV Co are made, particularly as such orders would reflect on their certificates and actions regarding the Deposited Plan; therefore, joinder is necessary under UCPR r 6.24(1) to avoid risk of inconsistent judgments and ensure all affected parties are present.

Parties
Applicant: CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd; First Respondent: CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (in Liq); Second Respondent: Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Transport Construction Authority; Fourth Respondent: Rail Corporation New South Wales; Fifth Respondent: Registrar-General; Sixth Respondent: Hard & Forester Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Pierre Hartzenberg; Eighth Respondent: Grinsell & Johns Pty Ltd; Ninth Respondent: Gordon Wren
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Joinder Motion in Class 4 Proceedings / Interlocutory Decision on Joinder of Parties
Outcome
Notice of motion for joinder granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Subdivision Certification, Development Consent Breach
Civil Procedure Planning Law Joinder of Parties Subdivision Certification Development Consent Breach

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd

Applicant

CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (in Liq)

First Respondent

Metro Chatswood Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Transport Construction Authority

Third Respondent

Rail Corporation New South Wales

Fourth Respondent

Registrar-General

Fifth Respondent

Hard & Forester Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Pierre Hartzenberg

Seventh Respondent

Grinsell & Johns Pty Ltd

Eighth Respondent

Gordon Wren

Ninth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joinder Motion in Class 4 Proceedings / Interlocutory Decision on Joinder of Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether joinder of surveyors and certifiers as respondents is 'necessary' under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 6.24(1)
  2. 2 Whether rights or liabilities of proposed parties would be directly affected by orders sought
  3. 3 Potential for inconsistent judgments if joinder not granted

Ratio Decidendi

There is an arguable possibility the rights or liabilities of the surveyors and certifiers may be directly affected if orders sought by JV Co are made, particularly as such orders would reflect on their certificates and actions regarding the Deposited Plan; therefore, joinder is necessary under UCPR r 6.24(1) to avoid risk of inconsistent judgments and ensure all affected parties are present.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion for joinder granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Each of Hard & Forester Pty Ltd, Pierre Hartzenberg, Grinsell and Johns Pty Ltd and Gordon Wren are joined as the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents respectively in these proceedings.
  • Direct the parties bring in draft short minutes of order addressing (i) the service upon the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents of all pleadings and evidence filed in the proceedings to date, together with a copy of all directions made for the preparation of the matter for hearing; and (ii) the time by...