Richardson Pacific Limited v Fielding

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 )

BETWEEN: RICHARDSON PACIFIC LIMITED

f E D ~ ~

couRT

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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richardson Pacific Limited brought an application in the Federal Court of Australia against Anthony David Bruce Michael McClaer Fielding and RoladUCT Pty Limited, seeking a separate trial of issues relating to liability and damages. The case involves complex matters that may require extensive time and cost to resolve. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant's request for a separate determination of liability and damages. The court considered the arguments presented by both sides regarding the complexity and interrelated nature of the issues. The applicant argued that separating the issues would avoid unnecessary delay and cost, while the respondents contended that the issues were intertwined and should be decided together.

The court found the case to be difficult, with strong arguments on both sides. The judge acknowledged the potential for increased cost and delay if the issues were tried separately, but also recognised the inter-relationship between liability and damages. Ultimately, the court decided that it was preferable to determine the case in a single trial. The judge refused the motion for a separation of issues and provided directions to ensure that the one trial could be adequately prepared and conducted. The judge also addressed the issue of discovery, noting that full disclosure of the respondents' financial records would be relevant to the damages claim if it was established that an improper advantage had been obtained. The judge indicated that there would be no problem in completing the discovery process.

The court's decision was based on a value judgment weighing the competing considerations of complexity, cost, and the inter-relationship between liability and damages. The court concluded that determining the case in a single trial was in the best interest of the parties and the administration of justice. The judge provided further directions to facilitate the preparation and conduct of the one trial, including the completion of discovery.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

[ 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