The plaintiff had obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction, giving an undertaking for damages. On its discharge, the defendants sought to make a counterclaim. The defendant company and its subsidiaries sought to counterclaim for their damages suffered as a result of the injunction. The Irish court had ordered an enquiry as to the damages. The counterclaim now additionally pleaded torts of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. The defendant sought to add as defendants in the original claim (and claimants in the counterclaim) subsidiary companies which had also suffered as a result of the injunction.
Held: The English court had jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim relating to an alleged breach of the joint venture agreement under which the original injunction had been granted. It was desirable that the additional defendants should be joined to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, and the claims fell within RSC15.6 after it had been extended following Vendervell Trustees. The remedy under a counterclaim might also be available to the company’s subsidiaries. It was said that a claimant (the additional defendants here) could not pursue a claim of civil malicious prosecution where they were not parties to the original claim. It was arguable that a tort of malicious prosecution of a civil action could succeed and it should go ahead, with the defendants joined in as claimants under the counterclaim. The claim for abuse of process should also proceed to trial.
Times 14-Apr-1995,  1 WLR 1067
Cited – Vendervell Trustees Ltd v White HL 1971
If the dispute could be adjudicated in the absence of a party and where no order was sought against that party, joinder was unnecessary and generally not allowed.
Order 15 Rule 13 requires that the presence of the party to be joined is . .
Cited – Tetra Molectric Limited v Japan Imports Limited CA 1976
The court had allowed another company to be added as respondent to an appeal by a plaintiff against the judge’s decision against a patent’s validity. ‘Sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) widens the discretion of the court to a great extent, for now . .
Cited – Montgomery v Foy, Morgan and Co 1895
The case of Norrois v Beazley was criticised as too narrow an interpretation of the rules. The court decsribed ‘one of the great objects of the Judicature Acts, namely that where there is one subject matter out of which several disputes arise, all . .
Cited – Norris v Beazley 1877
A person could not be added to a claim as defendant where the plaintiff has no claim against him and no wish to join him. . .
See also – Balkanbank v Taher and Others (No 2) CA 18-Nov-1994
The plaintiffs had sued in Ireland and obtained a Mareva injunction. That injunction was then first extended to a worldwide injunction, before being set aside. The court could itself to enquire as to damages without deciding whether to enforce the . .
Cited – Union Bank of the Middle East Ltd v Clapham CA 15-Jul-1981
The bank having sued the defendant under a guarantee, the defendant sought to join in the principal debtor company to pursue a counterclaim. The defendant appealed a refusal on the ground that the principal would not itself have been given leave to . .
Cited – Gurtner v Circuit CA 1968
The Court described the gap in provision for the recovery of damages for injury where the driver of a vehicle was uninsured: ‘if (a) the defendant was not insured at the time of the accident or (b) his policy of insurance was avoided in the . .
Cited – Amon v Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd 1956
The court analysed the circumstances under which additional parties might be joined to an action by a defendant, applying a narrow interpretation. The court considered whether a defendant may be added against the parties’ wishes: ‘There are two . .
Cited – Atid Navigation Co Ltd v Towage and Shipping Co Ltd 1955
The judge refused to allow an additional party to be joined to an action to pursue a counterclaim. The issues between the present parties could ‘perfectly well be decided’ without the additional party. . .
Cited – Pender v Taddei CA 22-Apr-1898
At first instance the defendant had been refused permission to join in another party (Bellani) who was a joint contractor, as a defendant to the counterclaim.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Cited – Metal und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 27-Jan-1989
The claimants sued for negligent advice and secured judgment. The defendant company became insolvent, and so the plaintiff now sued the US parent company alleging conspiracy. The court considered a tort of malicious prosecution of a civil claim, . .
Cited – Speed Seal Ltd v Paddington CA 1985
The court was asked whether the defendant should be permitted to add to his pleadings a counterclaim asserting that the action was brought in bad faith for the ulterior motive of damaging the defendants’ business, and not for the protection of any . .
Cited – Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
See Also – Balkanbank v Taher and Others 19-Feb-1994
Disclosure of legal advice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Company
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.78113