Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1999] FCA 718
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Federal Court Rules – application for order that the question of liability be determined separately from the question of damages – principles that govern the circumstances in which an order will be made under O 29 r 2 – circumstances where general rule has been modified – whether “just and convenient” to make an order under O 29 r 2
READING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY, AMP INVESTMENTS LIMITED NG 326 of 1997
BRANSON J SYDNEY 1 JUNE 1999 (Publication of Reasons)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 326 of 1997
BETWEEN:
READING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 070-893-908) Applicant
AND:
AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY (ACN 008-387-371) First Respondent
AMP INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 001-777-591) Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 326 of 1997
BETWEEN:
READING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 070-893-908) Applicant
AND:
AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY (ACN 008-387-371) First Respondent
AMP INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 001-777-591) Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE:
3 MAY 1999 (Date of Order) 1 JUNE 1999 (Publication of Reasons)
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a notice of motion dated 3 March 1999, filed on 15 March 1999, the applicant moved for an order under O 29 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules that the question of liability be determined separately from the question of damages in this proceeding. On 3 May 1999 I dismissed the motion. I indicated at that time that I would give reasons…
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 Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Soci...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1999] FCA 718
Case
[1999] FCA 718
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Reading Australia Pty Ltd versus Australian Mutual Provident Society involved a dispute between a property developer and an insurance company. The developer sought to have the questions of liability and damages decided separately in accordance with Order 29 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The developer argued that it would be just and convenient to make such an order due to the complexity of the issues and the potential for prejudice in determining both issues simultaneously. The insurance company opposed the application, arguing that the developer had not shown that the general rule against separate determinations of liability and damages had been met.
The court was required to determine whether the general rule against separate determinations of liability and damages had been met in this case, and whether it was just and convenient to make an order under Order 29 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The court considered the principles that govern the circumstances in which such an order will be made, and whether the developer had demonstrated that the general rule had been modified in this case. The court also considered whether the developer had shown that it would be just and convenient to make such an order.
The court found that the developer had not demonstrated that the general rule against separate determinations of liability and damages had been met. The court held that the developer had not shown that it would be just and convenient to make an order under Order 29 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The court dismissed the developer's application for an order that the question of liability be determined separately from the question of damages. The insurance company was not required to pay any costs of the application.