Richardson Pacific Limited v Fielding

[1990] FCA 842

842       40

JUDGMEM NO.. ,,,+.i..&,J -4,.

NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUT H WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG 205 of 1989

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

l

BETWEEN:  RICHARDSON PACIFIC LIMITED

l f E D ~ ~ couRT

or p , \ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' Applicant

l

21  !RN 2°03

@

AND :  ANTHONY DAVID BRUCE MICHAEL McCLAER FIELDING, and

U ROLADUCT PTY LIMITED

..

Respondents

CORAM: Burchett J.
PLACE: Sydney

DATE : 7 December 1990

l	EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
l
l	BURCHETT J. :

In this matter I have been referred by counsel to a

number of the authorities. I do not think it is necessary to

L. analyse them. They establish that there is a discretion, which I think must be exercised having regard to the particular circumstances of each case, to order a separate trial of issues which can, in fact, be separated out. That is what the applicant asks me to do in this case. The applicant seeks a separate determination of issues relating to liability.

liability and on damages, and Mr Shavin has pressed upon me

The case appears to present some complexity, both on

the cost and delay, and the extra length of hearing, which
would be occasioned by the complexity of the damages issues if
these were required to be determined at the same time as

liability. I have found this a difficult case, in which there

are powerful reasons for acceding to the submissions of both
sides.

Mr Ireland relies particularly on the extent to which

there is an inter-relationship between the issues of liability

L.

and the issues of damages. I think, ultimately, it comes down to a value judgment about those two dominating considerations, each pointing in the opposite direction. A number of

subsidiary issues have been raised, but in my mind they do not
really assist very greatly, because of the importance of the

two oppositely-tending issues to which I have referred.

On balance, I think it is preferable that this case be

determined at one trial, and, accordingly, I refuse the motion

id	for a separation of issues. That calls for some consideration of directions to enable the one trial to be prepared for
adequately, and proceeded with. The issue of discovery, which
is still incomplete, was raised during argument, and Mr Ireland made it clear that full discovery of the financial records of the respondents would be relevant to a claim for damages made on the footing that an improper advantage in the establishment of the respondents' business had been obtained, and Mr Ireland indicated that there would be no problem about completion of that discovery.

[ H i s Honour	then gave	further d irec t ions . ]
I	c e r t i f y that t h i s and the preceding two	( 2 ) pages

are a true copy o f the Reasons for Judgment herein

of h i s Honour M r Just ic

Dated: 7 December 1990