MEDICI CLINICS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD and MEDICI CLINICS PTY LTD v CHANDRA PATEL
[2014] ACTSC 29 (13 February 2014)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – separate decision of questions – scope of procedure – whether appropriate to order a separate question – where case involved complex evidence, risk that separate question not likely to shorten the matter or limit the issues in dispute and subject to an appeal – not appropriate to order a separate question.
Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 21, 1521
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334
CBS Productions Pty Ltd v O’Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601
Energy Australia v Australian Energy Ltd [2001] FCA 1049
Tallglen Pty Ltd v Pay TV Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 130
Idoport v National Australia Bank [2000] NSWSC 1215
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v AMP (1999) 217 ALR 495
Tepko v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SC 430 of 2010
Judge: Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 13 February 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 430 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN:MEDICI CLINICS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
AND:MEDICI CLINICS PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND:CHANDRA PATEL
Defendant
ORDER
Judge: Master Mossop
Date: 13 February 2014
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The defendant’s application for the determination of the separate question under rule 1521 is dismissed.
The applications are listed for hearing with an estimate of 10 days commencing on 4 August 2014.
Evidence-in-chief at the final hearing shall be by way of affidavit.
The defendant is to file and serve, no later than 17 March 2014 a schedule providing in relation to each of the patients identified in the plaintiff’s letter dated 30 August 2013, the following particulars:
(a)the name of the client;
(b)an identification of which element of the exclusion from the definition of “business” that the defendant says is applicable; and
(c)identifying the factual basis for the application of that exclusion.
The defendant’s application to strike out portions of the further amended Statement of Claim is listed for hearing on 4 April 2014 at 11 am.
The defendant is to file and serve an outline of submissions of not more than five pages by 20 March 2014.
The plaintiff is to file and serve an outline of submissions limited to not more than five pages by 31 March 2014.
The defendant is to file and serve any outline of submissions in reply limited to not more than three pages by 2 April 2014.
Each party is to file copies of no more than five authorities to which they intend to take the Court in submissions by 2 April 2014.
10. The plaintiff is to prepare a comprehensive set of directions that need to be made in relation to the preparation of the matter for hearing, including but not limited to:
(a)the filing and service of affidavits;
(b)the identification of issues that need to be determined by the…
Continue reading Medici Clinics (Australia) Pty Ltd and Medici Clinics Pty Lt...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Medici Clinics (Australia) Pty Ltd and Medici Clinics Pty Ltd v Chandra Patel [2014] ACTSC 29
- Case
- [2014] ACTSC 29
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to resolve included whether it was appropriate to order a separate question under the circumstances, considering the complexity of the evidence and the potential for the decision not to limit the issues in dispute. The court had to balance the benefits of a separate question against the risk that it would not necessarily shorten the matter or resolve significant points at issue, and the possibility of an appeal.
In its decision, the court determined that it was not appropriate to order a separate question. The complexity of the evidence and the risk that the separate question might not limit the issues in dispute led the court to conclude that such an order was not warranted. Furthermore, the potential for an appeal was a factor that weighed against the defendant’s application. The court also made several procedural orders, including setting a schedule for the final hearing and directing the parties to provide specific particulars and outlines of their submissions.
The court dismissed the defendant’s application for the determination of a separate question and outlined a schedule for the remaining steps in the proceedings, including the submission of particulars, outlines of submissions, and authorities to be presented at the final hearing. The final hearing was estimated to take 10 days, commencing on 4 August 2014.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant’s application for the determination of the separate question under rule 1521 is dismissed.
2. The applications are listed for hearing with an estimate of 10 days commencing on 4 August 2014.
3. Evidence-in-chief at the final hearing shall be by way of affidavit.
4. The defendant is to file and serve, no later than 17 March 2014 a schedule providing in relation to each of the patients identified in the plaintiff’s letter dated 30 August 2013, the following particulars:
(a) the name of the client;
(b) an identification of which element of the exclusion from the definition of “business” that the defendant says is applicable; and
(c) identifying the factual basis for the application of that exclusion.
5. The defendant’s application to strike out portions of the further amended Statement of Claim is listed for hearing on 4 April 2014 at 11 am.
6. The defendant is to file and serve an outline of submissions of not more than five pages by 20 March 2014.
7. The plaintiff is to file and serve an outline of submissions limited to not more than five pages by 31 March 2014.
8. The defendant is to file and serve any outline of submissions in reply limited to not more than three pages by 2 April 2014.
9. Each party is to file copies of no more than five authorities to which they intend to take the Court in submissions by 2 April 2014.
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
Full text does not contain this section.