Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd v Doyle - [2025] NSWSC 573

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd v Doyle [2025] NSWSC 573
Hearing dates: 30 May 2025
Date of orders: 30 May 2025
Decision date: 30 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
See [10]

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for determination of separate questions – application for questions of liability to be determined separately and in advance of quantification of damages – whether there should be a departure from the ordinary position to hear and determine all issues concurrently – whether separate questions will facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings – where there would be a potential for overlapping evidence – no separate questions to be answered.

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
LSR3 v New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1570

Texts Cited:
N.A.

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
Craig Robert Doyle (first defendant)
MKR Services (NSW) Pty Ltd as trustee for the Doyle Family Trust (second defendant)
SPE Services Pty Ltd (third defendant)
Doyle SMSF Investing Pty Ltd (fourth defendant)
Lisa Michele Doyle (fifth defendant)
CLD Espresso Pty Ltd (sixth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Perla (plaintiff)
E Felthouse (solicitor - defendants)
Solicitors:
Rose Litigation (plaintiff)
McCullough Robertson Lawyers (defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/200067
Publication restriction: N.A.

Judgment – Ex tempore (revised from the Transcript)

By notice of motion filed on 26 March 2025, the plaintiff relevantly seeks orders as follows:

pursuant to UCPR r 28.2, all questions of liability be determined separately and in advance of the quantification of damages; and

in the alternative, that if the Court determines that the plaintiff is entitled to an account of profits or equitable compensation (or any other damages as claimed), the quantification of any such entitlement is to be determined separately and after the determination of the declaratory and other relief as sought by the plaintiff in a statement of claim filed 8 July 2022.

The first and fourth to sixth defendants oppose the application.
There is no dispute about the relevant legal principles. Both parties accepted the summary of those principles by Faulkner J in LSR3 v New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1570 at [24]-[32]. In short, the Court has a discretion to make an order for the separate determination of questions. Ordinarily, the Court will hear and determine all issues at the same time and it is for the party who seeks a departure from the ordinary position to demonstrate why departure is desirable. The Court will approach the question in a commonsense way, having regard to the overriding purpose to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.
In this case, I am not persuaded that the Court should depart from the ordinary position. That is for the following reasons.
First, it is too early to rule out the possibility that there will be overlap in the evidence adduced at the liability stage and…

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 Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd v Doyle 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: [2025] NSWSC 573
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd sought relief from Doyle in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on a claim for damages arising from alleged breaches of contract and tortious claims relating to the supply of plumbing services. The court was tasked with addressing whether certain questions of liability should be determined separately and in advance of quantifying damages. The primary issue was whether there should be a departure from the conventional approach of hearing and determining all issues concurrently, and if separating these questions would expedite the resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

The court considered the potential for overlapping evidence and the overall efficiency of the proceedings. It was noted that separate questions might not necessarily lead to a more expeditious resolution and could, in fact, complicate matters. The court held that the ordinary practice of hearing and determining all issues concurrently should be adhered to, as separating the questions of liability from the quantification of damages could lead to unnecessary complexity and duplication of evidence. The potential for overlapping evidence was deemed significant, and the court found that separating the questions would not facilitate a just, quick, and cheap resolution of the issues at hand.

The court therefore ruled against the application for separate questions to be answered. The reasoning underscored the importance of maintaining a coherent and efficient process, even if it meant adhering to the traditional approach of hearing all issues together. The court’s decision was based on a careful assessment of the procedural implications and the potential for streamlined resolution of the case.

Orders