FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff [2012] FCA 1415
Citation: Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff [2012] FCA 1415 Parties: LIFEPLAN AUSTRALIA FRIENDLY SOCIETY LTD and FUNERAL PLAN MANAGEMENT PTY LTD v NOEL WOFF, RICHARD CORBY and FUNERAL PLANNING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD File number: SAD 99 of 2012 Judge: MANSFIELD J Date of judgment: 12 December 2012 Date of hearing: 6 August 2012 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 23 Counsel for the Applicants: M Douglas and T Martin Solicitor for the Applicants: Minter Ellison Counsel for the Respondents: TJF McEvoy and S Kee Solicitor for the Respondents: Arnold Bloch Liebler
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 99 of 2012
BETWEEN: LIFEPLAN AUSTRALIA FRIENDLY SOCIETY LTD
First ApplicantFUNERAL PLAN MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Second Applicant
AND: NOEL WOFF
First RespondentRICHARD CORBY
Second RespondentFUNERAL PLANNING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 DECEMBER 2012
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for a separate trial on the issue of liability only is refused.
2.The costs of the application are reserved.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 99 of 2012
BETWEEN: LIFEPLAN AUSTRALIA FRIENDLY SOCIETY LTD
First ApplicantFUNERAL PLAN MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Second Applicant
AND: NOEL WOFF
First RespondentRICHARD CORBY
Second RespondentFUNERAL PLANNING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
MANSFIELD J
DATE:
12 DECEMBER 2012
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
By an interlocutory application, the applicants Lifeplan Australian Friendly Society Ltd (Lifeplan) and Funeral Plan Management Pty Ltd (FPM) seek pursuant to r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) an order that all issues of liability be determined prior to any trial in relation to issues of the quantum of damages and/or account of profits and/or other remedies sought by the applicants. If the application at that first stage were unsuccessful, the remaining issues would not need to be addressed. The application was opposed by the respondents.
Rule 30.01 of the Rules provides:
30.01 Application for separate trials
(1)A party may apply to the Court for an order that a question arising in the proceeding be heard separately from any other questions.
(2)The application must be made before a date is fixed for trial of the proceeding.
Note 1 The Court may order that a party state a case and the question for decision.
Note 2The Court will give any directions that are necessary for the hearing of the separate question.
BACKGROUND
Lifeplan and FPM are providers of pre-paid funeral products to the Australian market. The first and second respondents, Mr Woff and Mr Corby were employed by Lifeplan.
Lifeplan and FPM claim that while Mr Woff and Mr Corby were employed by Lifeplan, Mr Woff and Mr Corby took without permission confidential information…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd v Woff 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] FCA 1415
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the principles established in previous cases such as Tallglen Pty Ltd v Pay TV Holdings Pty Ltd and Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board. It noted the importance of the onus being on the applicants to demonstrate why a split trial is necessary and that such trials should only be considered when their utility, economy, and fairness are beyond question. The court examined the nature of the case and the specific circumstances to determine whether a split trial would indeed be just and convenient. The plaintiffs' argument that a resolution of liability would improve the prospects for mediation and the significant cost savings if liability was not established were weighed against the respondents' concern about the overlap of evidence.
The court ultimately decided that it was appropriate to order a split trial. It found that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated that the issues of liability were distinct and could be resolved without the need for extensive evidence, thereby potentially saving significant costs and time. The court also considered the potential for improved mediation prospects if liability was determined first. The reasoning of the court was influenced by the nature of the case, the efficiency of resolving liability issues separately, and the potential benefits of a split trial in the specific circumstances presented. The court's decision reflects a balanced approach to the management of complex litigation, considering both the practicalities of the case and the broader principles of justice and fairness.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
This does not displace the general rule that all issues of liability and quantum should be dealt with in a single trial but simply reflects the justice and convenience which may apply to many cases concerning intellectual property rights: Tallglen Pty Ltd v Pay TV Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 130, 141-2. Caution regarding the ordering of split trials was expressed in Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1 by Kirby and Callinan JJ at 55: “[s]ingle issue trials should, in our opinion, only be embarked upon when their utility, economy and fairness to the parties are beyond question.” The onus is on the applicants to show why there should be a departure from conducting a single trial: Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1215 [7]. Whether it is just and convenient to order the split trial will depend upon the nature of the case and the particular circumstances relevant to it: Fleming’s Nurseries Pty Ltd v Hannaford [2008] FCA 591 at [17]. A matter should not be separated for preliminary hearing unless the matter is “ripe”, namely “where it is a central issue in contention between the parties, the resolution of which will either obviate the necessity of litigation altogether or substantially narrow the field of controversy”: CBS Productions Pty Ltd v O’Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 600 at 606 per Kirby P. CONSIDERATION Lifeplan and FPM submit that they are prepared to run their case on the question of liability, and that factually and legally, the question of liability will be straightforward and should be dealt with in less than five hearing days. They submit that questions of quantum and relief will require greatly expanded disclosure and expert and lay evidence, resulting in significant costs and delays. They say that if they cannot establish liability, the proceeding will be finalised without the need for such evidence. This will obviously result in a significant cost saving to the parties. An additional reason put forward by Lifeplan and FPM is that they intend to seek public findings by the Court regarding Mr Woff and Mr Corby’s breaches of their duties to the applicants, and that subsequent to the resolution of the issue of liability; the prospects of mediating the matter will be significantly improved. The respondents submit that the principal problem with a split trial is that there is an inevitable overlap between the issues concerning any breach of duty and any loss that might flow from them. This, the respondents say, would result in an overlap between the evidence required to be adduced at each stage of the trial: see Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Scott [2003] FCA 226 at [12]. The respondents submit that, contrary to the applicants’ submissions, all but one of the persons provisionally listed as proposed witnesses would be expected to give evidence which would bear on liability as well as on quantum. In addition to Mr Woff and Mr Corby, and also Ms Alisha Nee who was also an employee of Lifeplan, the respondents propose to rely upon evidence from five other witnesses who are either the proprietors, chief executive officers or owners of five separate funeral homes. The respondents say that these five witnesses will give evidence of their dissatisfaction with Lifeplan; that neither Mr Woff nor Mr Corby had approached them prior to the end of their employment with Lifeplan and/or that the text in the Forester/FPA product disclosure and marketing and administration documents did not influence their decision to support the products and services.