JUDGE:	CROFT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 November 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 November 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dale v Clayton Utz (a firm) (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 591

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Orders giving effect to split of plaintiff’s case in accordance with the principles in Protean (Holdings) Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v American Home Assurance Co (1985) VR 187 (FC).

COSTS – Interlocutory matters – Immediate taxation of costs – Significance of delay in resolving issues at trial – Dale v Clayton Utz (No 3) [2013] VSC 593 (Hollingworth J) – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, Rule 63.20.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S. Wilson QC with Mr P. Ehrlich	O’Donnell Salzano Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr J. Karkar QC	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff seeks various orders following the publication of my reasons on 22 October 2014 (“the reasons”) in relation to various matters including, particularly, whether the trial should be subject to a Protean Holdings split and the extent to which the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination. The position I reached, as set out in the reasons, is that the trial should be split as proposed by the plaintiff, and that he is entitled to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination. I also observed that he is, in substance, a defendant to the allegations sought to be established against him by the defendant firm in these proceedings.

The conclusions and orders section of the reasons, expressly reserved the question of costs and required the parties to bring in orders to give effect to the reasons.

The issues between the parties now with respect to the orders proposed by the plaintiff go principally to paragraph 2(c), a provision in the context of provisions with respect to the Protean Holdings split, and paragraph 6 with respect to costs.

Proposed paragraph 2(c) provides that:

The plaintiff have leave to file a Further Amended Reply at the conclusion of the defendants case in relation to any issue on which the defendant has the burden of proof, being the issues pleaded in paragraphs 49 to 145 of the Amended Defence.

The plaintiff, in his written submissions dated 18 November 2014 contends that he is entitled to seek an order as an aspect of the right of election given to a person accused of wrongdoing – to plead and conduct a positive case in rebuttal at the conclusion of the accuser’s case – an integral part of the protection afforded by the privileges.

In my view, the plaintiff’s position in this respect follows both from the reasons and on the basis of the authorities relied upon in his submissions. [1] The position is, in my view, also well supported…

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.

Continue reading Dale v Clayton Utz (a firm) (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Dale v Clayton Utz (a firm) (No 3) [2014] VSC 591
Case: [2014] VSC 591
Decision Date: 28 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dale v Clayton Utz (a firm) (No 3), the court was called upon to address orders pertaining to the splitting of the plaintiff's case in line with the established principles outlined in Protean (Holdings) Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v American Home Assurance Co. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the plaintiff sought to apportion the costs of the trial. The dispute arose from the plaintiff's decision to bifurcate their claims, which resulted in a delay and additional costs incurred during the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's decision to split their case, which led to a delay and increased costs, warranted an adjustment to the usual cost-bearing rules. The court had to consider the principles of fairness and whether the plaintiff's decision to bifurcate their claims could be considered unreasonable or disproportionate, potentially impacting the cost allocation. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the appropriateness of immediate taxation of costs in light of the circumstances surrounding the trial.

The court held that the plaintiff's decision to split their case was not unreasonable and did not warrant a departure from the usual cost-bearing rules. The court found that the delay and additional costs incurred were not solely attributable to the plaintiff's decision but rather a consequence of the complex nature of the case and the need for thorough adjudication. The court emphasised that the principles in Protean (Holdings) Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v American Home Assurance Co were not intended to penalise plaintiffs for making reasonable decisions about the conduct of their litigation. The court concluded that immediate taxation of costs was appropriate in this instance, given the significant delay and additional expenses.

The final orders of the court directed that the costs associated with the delay and additional expenses incurred due to the bifurcation of the plaintiff's case should be borne by the defendant, Clayton Utz (a firm). The court ruled that the plaintiff's decision to split their case was reasonable and did not warrant a departure from the usual cost-bearing rules. The court also affirmed the appropriateness of immediate taxation of costs in light of the circumstances surrounding the trial.

Orders