Habchi v Jason H Pty Ltd (ACN 658 016 418) as Trustee for the Jason H Family Trust

The case of Habchi v Jason H Pty Ltd (ACN 658 016 418) as Trustee for the Jason H Family Trust involved a dispute between Mr Habchi, the plaintiff, and the defendant companies, Jason H Pty Ltd and the Jason H Family Trust. The central issue in this case was the order in which the parties should present their evidence during a trial of separate questions. The dispute arose from a legal proceeding in the NSW Supreme Court, where the parties were engaged in a hearing to determine specific questions as part of their broader litigation.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant parties should give their evidence first during the hearing of separate questions. This issue was significant as it could influence the overall strategy and effectiveness of the presentation of evidence in the trial. Typically, the party bearing the burden of proof in a case would present their evidence first, but the implications of this principle in the context of a hearing of separate questions were not straightforward. The court had to consider the procedural fairness and the practicalities of managing the evidence in such a context.

In resolving the matter, the court found that the plaintiff, Mr Habchi, should give evidence first at the trial for separate questions. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the understanding that in a hearing of separate questions, the plaintiff's role in initiating the action often entails establishing foundational facts that could facilitate the determination of the specific issues at hand. This approach ensures that the plaintiff has the opportunity to lay the groundwork for their claims before the defendants respond. The court also noted that this order would likely streamline the trial process and enhance procedural fairness.

The final orders of the court mandated that Mr Habchi would give evidence first at the trial for separate questions commencing on 15 September 2025. Additionally, the court scheduled a subsequent hearing to address the issue of costs associated with the parties.