Arnold v Attorney-General for Victoria - [1995] FCA 727

JUDGMENT No. ..%22..,,/

2 L . .

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - Trial - Mode of trial - Discretion to order separate trials as to

liability and damages.

Federal Court Rules, Order 29 rule 2

15 SEP 1995

*Emma Silver Mining CO v. Grant* (1879) 11 Ch D 918	AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL
*Coenen v. Payne* [l9741 1 WLR 984; [l9741 2 All ER 1109

Polskie v. Electric Furnace CO Ltd [l9561 1 WLR 562; [l9561 2

Dunstan v. Simmie & CO Pty Ltd [l9781 VR 669

Marks v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Times Law Reports 28 January

1992

MICHAEL JOHN ARNOLD V. THE A'ITORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

VICTORIA and THE STATE OF VICTORIA VG 629 of 1995; ROSS FREDERICK

BETTS v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE

STATE OF VICTORIA VG 630 of 1995; JOHN BRUCE BINGEMAN v. THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE STATE OF

VICTORIA VG 631 of 1995; RICHARD JOHN BOWMAN v. THE ATTORNEY-

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE STATE OF VICTORIA VG 632

of 1995; LYN ROSS BOYES v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE STATE OF VICTORIA VG 633 of 1995; MICHAEL JOHN

CROYLE v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE

STATE OF VICTORIA VG 634 of 1995; PAUL JULIAN MULVANY v. THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE STATE OF

VICTORIA VG 635 of 1995; MICHAEL JOHN GREY GORTON v. THE ATTORNEY-

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA and THE STATE OF VICTORIA VG 636

of 1995; PETER BARRY HARDHAM v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE

OF VICTORIA and THE STATE OF VICTORIA VG637 of 1995

COURT:	Sundberg J
PLACE:	Melbourne
DATE:	8 September 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

)	No VG 629 of 1995

GENERAL DIVISION

)

BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN ARNOLD

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY -GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

No VG 630 of 1995

BETWEEN: ROSS FREDERICK BETTS

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

BETWEEN: JOHN BRUCE BINGEMAN

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

BETWEEN: RICHARD JOHN BOWMAN

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

No VG 633 of 1995

BETWEEN: LYN ROSS BOYES

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN CROYLE

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

BETWEEN: PAUL JULIAN MULVANY

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

No VG 636 of 1995

BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN GREY GORTON

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

BETWEEN: PETER BARRY HARDHAM

Applicant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

AND:

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondents

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arnold v Attorney-General for Victoria and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] FCA 727
Decision Date: 8 Sep 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Sundberg J, involves multiple applicants, all former members of the Accident Compensation Tribunal, suing the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria and the State of Victoria. The applicants, including Michael John Arnold, Ross Frederick Betts, and others, seek various declarations and damages, primarily based on the abolition of their positions by the Accident Compensation (Workcover) Act 1992 (Vict.), which they argue is unconstitutional and breached their legitimate expectations and contractual rights. The applicants claim that the abolition of their positions without provision for continuity or equivalent appointments infringes upon the independence and security of the judiciary, breaches their contractual agreements with the State, and violates their legitimate expectations regarding job security and procedural fairness.

The central legal issues in this case revolve around the validity of the 1992 Act, the applicants' claims for breach of contract and legitimate expectations, and the appropriateness of separate trials for issues of liability and damages. The applicants argue for a bifurcation of the trial to first address the validity of the 1992 Act and the respondents' liability, followed by a separate trial on the quantum of damages if liability is established. The respondents, on the other hand, oppose this bifurcation, arguing that the issues should be tried together to avoid unnecessary inconvenience and costs.

Sundberg J examined the applicants' request to bifurcate the trial, considering the potential savings in time and cost against the inconvenience of splitting the proceedings. The judge concluded that while bifurcation might save some time, it was not sufficiently clear that doing so would be "just and convenient." The complexity of the constitutional and administrative law issues, the potential for lengthy quantum evidence, and the need for a seamless trial process outweighed the potential benefits of bifurcation. Therefore, the judge ruled against separating the issues of liability and damages, opting instead for a single trial where all evidence, including that related to damages, would be presented and considered together.

In conclusion, Sundberg J ordered that the cases be tried simultaneously, with evidence to be presented by affidavit. The judge also set a timetable for the filing and service of affidavits, with deadlines for the applicants, respondents, and any replies, and scheduled a directions hearing for further instructions. The costs of the applications were reserved for later determination.

Orders