Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 APRIL 2010

Federal Court Rules on Joinder of Parties in Comcare Litigation: Falling Between Two Stools

In John Holland Pty Ltd v Comcare (2009) 260 ALR 106, the Full Court of the Federal Court (Sundberg, Edmonds and Tracey JJ) refused leave to the appellant (John Holland) to appeal an order of Jessup J granting an application by Comcare to join a second John Holland Group company to proceedings relating to a workplace incident.

AustraliaGovernment, Public Sector
Michael Tooma (Formerly With Norton Rose Fulbright Australia)
Michael Tooma (Formerly With Norton Rose Fulbright Australia)
Alena Titterton
Alena Titterton
Sam Witton
Sam Witton
Author LinkedIn connections

In John Holland Pty Ltd v Comcare (2009) 260 ALR 106, the Full Court of the Federal Court (Sundberg, Edmonds and Tracey JJ) refused leave to the appellant (John Holland) to appeal an order of Jessup J granting an application by Comcare to join a second John Holland Group company to proceedings relating to a workplace incident. The Full Court endorsed the view of the primary judge, Jessup J, that not joining the second defendant to the proceedings would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute".

Background

In April 2007, John Holland won a contract with Yarra Trams to construct Melbourne's light rail network (Project). John Holland contracted with another John Holland Group company, John Holland Rail Pty Ltd (JH Rail), to construct the rail component of the Project. JH Rail hired workers for the Project from a labour hire company.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from