AAI Ltd t/a Vero Insurance v Solarus Projects Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq)

AAI Ltd trading as Vero Insurance (the appellant) sought leave to appeal against an order of the primary judge that a separate question be tried. The separate question concerned the interpretation of a clause within a construction contract, specifically whether it entitled the respondent, Solarus Projects Pty Ltd (in liquidation), to recover certain costs from the appellant. The dispute arose in the context of insolvency proceedings against Solarus Projects.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in ordering that the separate question be tried. This involved considering whether the determination of the separate question would, in fact, resolve a distinct issue in the proceedings, and whether it was just and convenient to order its separate trial, having regard to the overall conduct of the litigation and the potential for prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal. The reasoning focused on the fact that the primary judge had a broad discretion to order the trial of a separate question, and that discretion had not been exercised on principles that were demonstrably wrong. The Court noted that the separate question was capable of resolving a discrete issue and that the primary judge had properly considered the relevant factors in exercising that discretion.

The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.