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.
Separate trials on liability and quantum would unfairly prejudice defendant
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in commercial proceedings concerning a substantive claim for damages for the tort of deceit, refuses plaintiff's application for separate trials on the issues of causation and liability, on the grounds that a fair trial will not result as the defendant's ability to cross-examine the plaintiff as a central figure in the proceedings would be severely curtailed because of the significant overlap in the evidence to be tested with regard to both issues of liability and quantum.
Commercial court - application for a modular trial in order to try issues of liability and quantum separately - Order 36 rule 9 RSC - tort of deceit in supply of aggregate to plaintiff which it says contained pyrite - inherent jurisdiction of court - default position of a unitary trial - interests of all parties and the interests of justice to be considered - for the purpose of saving costs - burden of application on moving party - plaintiff's case - significant burden of cost and time in making court ordered discovery of certain categories relating to question of quantum - whether a stay should be granted on delivery of such discovery pending court's determination of issue of liability abandoned by plaintiff during hearing of motion - extent of damage purported to be a significant dispute between parties - public interest in the efficient use of court time - three week hearing at the trial envisaged - defendant's case - risk of prejudice - credibility of plaintiff must be tested across all of his evidence as a central feature in the case - no opportunity to cross-examine him on quantum-related evidence if application granted - nature of loss claimed makes it difficulty to separate issues of liability and quantum - whether question of entitlement to equitable relief requires trial to be heard as a whole - purported delay of 3 years between separated trials - complex proceedings - not possible to conduct a fair trial in this case if modulated - plaintiff's credibility a significant issue and a modular trial will prejudice the defendant's ability to test evidence - nature of claim not a reason on its own to refuse application for a modular trial - 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.
