ABSTRACT
It is clear from the facts of this case that the plaintiff could have joined the three parties as second, third and fourth defendants and then applied successfully under Ord 11, r 1(1)(j) to have notice of the writ served on them out of the jurisdiction as necessary and proper parties, in particular with regard to the alleged tortious acts of misappropriating trust funds. If that course were open to the plaintiff, I do not see how the defendant can be denied a remedy. It would be unjust to do so.
