The Court refused joinder of proposed additional defendants (Yolk Property Group and its director) under O 18 r 6(2)(b), holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that joinder was 'necessary' as distinct from merely just and convenient. Palmer J expressly acknowledged that joinder would have been ordered on case management grounds if the rule permitted it, but the statutory test requires necessity, not convenience. The amendment application was allowed in part: leave was granted to add claims for misleading or deceptive conduct (limited to pre-contractual representations) and unconscionable conduct against the existing defendant, but leave to plead the tortious conspiracy claim was refused as a consequence of the refusal of joinder. The Court noted the plaintiff could commence separate proceedings and seek consolidation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.