Ahmed El Hayek v Josslyn Vasic; QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Pty Ltd

The case before the court involved a personal injury claim, with Ahmed El Hayek as the plaintiff against Josslyn Vasic, the defendant. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a car accident, with QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited and Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Pty Ltd also involved in the proceedings as the respective insurers of the plaintiff and defendant. The court was tasked with considering a motion to determine specific questions of law and fact separately from the remaining issues in the case. The primary concern was whether such a separation would promote the just, quick, and cheap resolution of the proceedings.

The court had to address whether the determination of the proposed separate questions would facilitate the overall resolution of the case, particularly in light of the commonality of witnesses between the separate questions and the other issues in the proceedings. A significant consideration was the potential relevance of the credibility of these common witnesses to both the separate questions and the broader issues. If the credibility of these witnesses was crucial to resolving the separate questions, their assessment might also be pertinent to the remaining issues, potentially complicating the separation process.

In evaluating these factors, the court found that the determination of the proposed separate questions would indeed contribute to achieving a just, quick, and cheap resolution of the proceedings. The commonality of witnesses did not preclude the court from considering the separate determination, as the potential benefits in terms of efficiency and clarity outweighed the risks. The court concluded that the proposed separation would streamline the proceedings and was in the interests of justice. Consequently, the motion to determine the separate questions was granted.