- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Barlow v. Fanning
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiffs—two current and one former staff members of the economics department in The University—issued proceedings in 1998 against Defendant Professor and The University. They alleged that Defendant Professor, while head of the department, engaged in a course of conduct that marginalised them professionally and personally, and that The University was vicariously liable for, and failed to prevent, those actions.
An appearance and joint defence were originally entered on behalf of both defendants. After mediation commenced, the Plaintiffs served a notice of discontinuance against Defendant Professor on 8 June 1999, expressly promising never to sue him again over the same matters. Defendant Professor, believing this step impeded his ability to defend his reputation and excluded him from settlement discussions, applied under Order 15 Rule 13 to be “re-joined” as a defendant. The Master of the High Court refused; on appeal, Judge Johnson ordered that Defendant Professor be re-joined and struck out the notice of discontinuance. The University—supported by the Plaintiffs—appealed that order to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Order 15 Rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts empowers a court to add a party as a defendant against the wishes of both the plaintiff and the existing defendant(s) after the plaintiff has discontinued the claim against that party.
- Whether the potential reputational impact on a non-party constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” justifying compulsory joinder under the rule.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant Professor’s Arguments
- The discontinuance prevented him from defending his reputation, as damaging findings might be made in his absence.
- The mediation agreement with The University envisaged a joint defence that was being undermined.
- Accordingly, he should be re-joined or the discontinuance struck out under Order 15 Rule 13.
The University’s and Plaintiffs’ Arguments
- They opposed compulsory joinder, asserting that the Plaintiffs had expressly abandoned all claims against Defendant Professor.
- They contended that Order 15 Rule 13 does not authorise joinder merely to protect the reputation of a discontinued defendant.
- No “exceptional circumstances” comparable to earlier authorities existed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vandervell Trustees Ltd v White [1971] AC 912 | Scope of the English rule on joinder; emphasised that power exists only where a party “ought to be joined” or is “necessary.” | Quoted to demonstrate that even under a wide reading, the rule does not permit joinder simply because it is “just or convenient.” |
| Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd [1956] 1 KB 357 | Early comprehensive review of joinder principles under the same rule. | Used, via citation in Vandervell Trustees, to underline the limits of compulsory joinder. |
| Fincoriz S.A.S. v Ansbacher & Co. Ltd (High Court, 20 March 1987) | Example of “exceptional circumstances” where non-parties were joined to resolve proprietary claims over a fund. | Distinguished; the present case lacked comparable circumstances because no proprietary or financial right of Defendant Professor was at stake. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Keane noted the absence of authority allowing a discontinued defendant to compel joinder over the united opposition of all existing parties. Reviewing Order 15 Rule 13, the Court stressed that a person may be added only if he “ought to have been joined” or if his presence is “necessary” for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions in the cause.
The Court contrasted the present facts with Fincoriz, where joinder was essential to adjudicate conflicting proprietary claims. Here, the Plaintiffs sought relief solely from The University; Defendant Professor faced no direct liability, and any reputational impact was collateral. Were reputation alone sufficient, every employee whose acts are alleged against an employer could insist on joinder, a result the rule cannot bear.
English developments expanding joinder powers (Order 15 Rule 62(b)(ii)) have no counterpart in Irish rules, further confirming the limited scope of Irish Order 15 Rule 13. Consequently, Defendant Professor was neither a party who “ought to have been joined” nor “necessary” to resolve the litigation.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, dismissed Defendant Professor’s application, and restored the Plaintiffs’ discontinuance as against him.
The immediate effect is that the action proceeds solely against The University, with no claims remaining against Defendant Professor. The judgment clarifies that reputational concerns, without more, do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting compulsory joinder under Order 15 Rule 13, but it establishes no new substantive cause of action.
Alert