Arnold v Attorney-General for Victoria

In the case of Arnold v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, the applicants, former members of the Accident Compensation Tribunal, sought declarations and damages against the State of Victoria and its Attorney-General, claiming that the abolition of the Tribunal without providing for their continued employment or equivalent compensation breached their constitutional rights, contractual agreements, and legitimate expectations. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court should order separate trials for the questions of liability and damages, and the appropriateness of splitting the trial into two stages.

The applicants argued that separating the issues of liability and quantum could potentially save time and costs, as the proceedings on quantum would not need to proceed if the applicants failed on liability. However, Sundberg J found that the applicants had not made a compelling case for a split, as it would be more convenient for the applicants to give their entire evidence at once and be cross-examined only once. Furthermore, the judge considered other factors such as the inconvenience to the parties and the court of a break in proceedings, and the importance of the constitutional and administrative law issues at stake.

Consequently, Sundberg J decided against separating the issues of liability and damages and ruled that the cases be tried together with evidence given by affidavit. The judge also set a timetable for the filing and serving of affidavits and adjourned the matters to a directions hearing.

In summary, the court rejected the applicants' request for a split in the trial and ordered that the cases be tried at the same time with evidence provided by affidavit. The directions hearing was adjourned to a later date to allow for further directions to be given.