French v Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd

In the matter of French v Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamation arising from statements made by the defendant on its radio station. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Justice Bromberg. The defendant's application to split the case in relation to the calling of expert witnesses was the central issue. The application was made on the basis that the plaintiff had not yet proved certain facts at trial, and that the plaintiff would face an undue burden in proving a negative if the application was not granted.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had established that certain facts were not in dispute, and if so, whether it was just and convenient to split the case. Justice Bromberg noted that the plaintiff had not yet led evidence to prove certain facts, and that the defendant had not yet been called upon to lead evidence in relation to those facts. The court found that it was just and convenient to split the case, as the plaintiff would face an undue burden in proving a negative if the case proceeded as a whole. The court also noted that the inconvenience to the plaintiff in proving a negative outweighed any inconvenience to the defendant in having to lead evidence in relation to the disputed facts.

Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's application to split the case. The court ordered that the trial proceed in two stages, with the first stage to determine the disputed facts, and the second stage to determine the issue of justification. The court also made an order that the parties bear their own costs of the application.