Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Limited v Arup Pty Limited

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Limited (BAC) sought a separate trial on the issue of liability from the trial of the quantum of damages in their proceedings against Arup Pty Limited (Arup). BAC alleged that Arup’s design of the Northern Apron Expansion (NAE) of the Brisbane Airport was defective in five respects and that extensive rectification works were required. Arup denied liability and contested the quantum of damages. The case was complex, involving a substantial dispute over the staging and cost of rectification works, which was significantly impacted by operational restrictions and the COVID-19 pandemic. BAC sought a separate trial on the issue of liability, arguing that it would result in savings in time and costs and enhance the prospects of resolution. Arup opposed the application, contending that a separate trial on liability would not be just and convenient.

The court considered whether a separate trial on liability would result in savings in time and costs to both parties, whether it would enhance the prospects of resolution, and whether it would be just and convenient. The court noted that the quantum case was in a state of flux due to uncertainties about early rectification works and altered operational restrictions related to reduced air traffic during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that a separate trial on liability would result in savings in time and costs to both parties, as it would allow the parties to focus on the liability issues without the distraction of the quantum issues. The court also held that a separate trial on liability would enhance the prospects of resolution, as it would allow the parties to negotiate and reach a settlement on the liability issues before proceeding to the trial of the quantum issues. The court further held that a separate trial on liability would be just and convenient, as it would allow the parties to proceed in a manner that was most efficient and effective in resolving the dispute.

The court ordered that there be a first trial of all issues other than and separately from those concerning the quantum of the plaintiff’s claimed damages for the necessary and reasonable work (if any) to rectify the NAE, any issues as to the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate its loss, and any issues as to betterment to the plaintiff from the rectification works, and its quantification. The court reserved costs.