Winspear v Mackinnon [2008] FCA 456

Winspear v Mackinnon [2008] FCA 456

Mr Mackinnon was not a person who ought to have been joined at the outset, because no orders were sought against him and no obvious interest of his was affected. His joinder was not necessary to determine the remaining issue of whether the third and fourth defendants should be wound up, and any claim he may have against the trustees or the plaintiff could be pursued separately or potentially by a liquidator. Given the lateness of the application, delay, and absence of any identified position on the remaining winding up issue, the Court refused joinder.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Joinder / Application Made After Substantive Judgment, With Only the Winding Up Issue Remaining
Outcome
The interlocutory application for joinder was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Parties' 'rectification of Share Registers' 'winding Up of Companies' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'trusts'] ['joinder of Parties' 'rectification of Share Registers' 'winding Up of Companies' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Joinder / Application Made After Substantive Judgment, With Only the Winding Up Issue Remaining

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Donald Michael Mackinnon ought to have been joined as a party under O 6 r 8(1) of the Federal Court Rules.' "Whether Mr Donald Michael Mackinnon's joinder was necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute could be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon." 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to allow joinder at a late stage of the proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Mackinnon was not a person who ought to have been joined at the outset, because no orders were sought against him and no obvious interest of his was affected. His joinder was not necessary to determine the remaining issue of whether the third and fourth defendants should be wound up, and any claim he may have against the trustees or the plaintiff could be pursued separately or potentially by a liquidator. Given the lateness of the application, delay, and absence of any identified position on the remaining winding up issue, the Court refused joinder.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application for joinder was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application made by Mr Donald Michael Mackinnon on 25 March 2008 is dismissed.' "Mr Donald Michael Mackinnon pay the plaintiff's costs of the interlocutory application."]