Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Application for separate trial of preliminary issues is refused
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses a second named defendant in a commercial dispute permission to hold a separate modular trial of three preliminary issues in a case due to start in three months and run for an estimated twelve weeks, finding that a unitary trial would be appropriate for the saving of time of cost, and noting that the danger of injustice in dealing with cases piecemeal is very real.
Second defendant seeking trial of three preliminary issues: (a) whether the plaintiff's claim is bound to fail as no actionable damage has been sustained; (b) whether the plaintiff's claim for damages as against the second named defendant is bound to fail where correspondence relied upon by the plaintiff post-date the completion of the design sought; and (c) whether, if the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the pleaded claims against the second defendant,
the first and second named defendant be treated as concurrent wrong doers - danger in dividing trials piecemeal into stages or modules - this case is at present three months from hearing - case may take twelve weeks - costs of trial may be substantial - court unconvinced that the trial at a preliminary hearing of the three issues raised should be ordered - court not satisfied that any significant saving of time or cost would be achieved by dividing the case into two parts to determine liability and quantum - application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
