Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v Bhagria; Ryan v O'Halloran; Ryan v Cain (No 2)
[2022] ACTCA 7
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v Bhagria; Ryan v O'Halloran; Ryan v Cain (No 2) |
Citation: | [2022] ACTCA 7 |
Hearing Date(s): | 2 March 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 2 March 2022 |
Before: | Berman AJ |
Decision: | See [12]-[13] |
Catchwords: | PROCEDURE – COURT OF APPEAL PROCEDURE – Application to separate proceedings – efficient administration of justice |
Cases Cited: | Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v O’Halloran & Ors; Ryan v Bhagria & Anor [2020] ACTSC 353 |
Parties: | Mark Ryan (Appellant) Bunnings Group Limited (Respondent in ACTCA 6 of 2021) Eastlake Football Club Limited (Respondent in ACTCA 7 of 2021) Tejinder Bhagria (First Respondent in ACTCA 8 of 2021) AAI Limited t/as GIO (Second Respondent in ACTCA 8 of 2021) Jade O’Halloran (First Respondent in ACTCA 9 of 2021) Stephen Cain (First Respondent in ACTCA 10 of 2021) Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (Second Respondent in ACTCA 9 & 10 of 2021) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) I Meagher (Respondent in ACTCA 6 of 2021) C Power (Respondent in ACTCA 7 of 2021) R Reddy (Respondents in ACTCA 8 of 2021) W Fitzsimmons (Respondents in ACTCA 9 & 10 of 2021) |
| Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) Bradley Allen Love (Respondent in ACTCA 6 of 2021) Sparke Helmore (Respondent in ACTCA 7 of 2021) Moray & Agnew (Respondents in ACTCA 8 of 2021) HWL Ebsworth (Respondents in ACTCA 9 & 10 of 2021)Moray Agnew (Defendants in SC 510 of 2018) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 6 of 2021; ACTCA 7 of 2021; ACTCA 8 of 2021; ACTCA 9 of 2021; ACTCA 10 of 2021 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Loukas-Karlsson J Date of Decision: 23 December 2020 Case Title: Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v O’Halloran & Ors; Ryan v Bhagria & Anor Citation: [2020] ACTSC 353 |
BERMAN AJ:
Between 18 February 2019 and 17 February 2020 Loukas-Karlsson J heard a matter in which Mark Ryan sought damages against five separate defendants (Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v O’Halloran & Ors; Ryan v Bhagria & Anor [2020] ACTSC 353). The actions said to give rise to the harm to Mr Ryan were entirely separate although, of course, the consequences for him were said to be interrelated.
On 23 December 2020 her Honour delivered judgment finding for each of the five defendants and thus entering judgment for each of those defendants with the plaintiff to pay costs. Mr Ryan has appealed against that decision. The appeal is listed to be heard by the Court of Appeal between 16 and 18 May 2022. All five matters are, at this stage, to be heard together. It appears that Mr Ryan will be self-represented at the appeal.
Mr Ryan has filed five applications in similar terms. He seeks that each of the five matters be heard on its own on a date to be determined. He relies on the following grounds:
(a) The legal issues in each matter are not related to the legal issues in the other matters.
(b) It would be cheaper for each of the respondents to the appeal.
(c) I would be able to conduct his hearing more effectively which would, in turn, facilitate speedy adjudication of the appeal.
Mr Ryan refers to unspecified medical issues which would adversely affect his ability to conduct all the five appeals over three consecutive days. At today's hearing he referred to a psychological report which had been tendered in earlier proceedings by him. I accept that, as Mr Ryan says, he does have cognitive issues which are to be taken into account in determining today's applications. Each of the five respondents asks that I dismiss the applications with each arguing that all five matters should be heard together.
I am satisfied that I should not grant the applications. Despite the fact that the five incidents giving rise to the proceedings before Loukas-Karlsson J were separate from each other, that is not to say that the issues arising from them were unrelated. For example, early in her Honour's judgment she makes findings regarding Mr Ryan's credibility, explaining from [33] why she has formed an adverse view of it. For example, one of the matters her Honour took into account “was contradictory evidence of the same events from another witness specifically three separate witnesses in relation to three separate events.”
As Mr Fitzsimmons, for two of the parties, has explained today, the interrelationship refers to both questions of damages and also questions of liability. It was clear that Mr Ryan's credit was central to the resolution of many aspects of the issues raised before her Honour. Thus the issues to be resolved on this appeal in relation to any one of the five incidents are likely to be interrelated with issues to be resolved regarding other incidents. Credit issues have been raised by the appellants in the various notices of appeal and, as I have just mentioned, her Honour's findings of credit involved a consideration of all five matters and so each respondent to the appeal is entitled, on the appeal, to rely on the credit findings made by her Honour regarding each incident.
Because of this interrelationship, hearing five appeals separately is highly likely to result in an unnecessary duplication of work by the parties and the court. It is difficult to see how, if the applications were granted, the Court of Appeal could resist an application by each of the parties to appear in each of the appeals. Rather than reducing the number of issues to be determined, this potentially would increase the complexity of the matters.
There are a number of practical considerations that need to be taken into account as well. There is, of course, no guarantee that if there were five separate appeals, the same five judges would be able to sit on them. Indeed, given the likely movements of judicial personnel coming up in the next few months, it is highly unlikely that the same five judges would be able to sit on each of the appeals. Not only would this add to the workload of the court and thus interfere with the efficient administration of justice but there is the potential for what is sometimes described as 'the scandal of inconsistent decisions'.
Another practical problem arises from Mr Ryan's likely submission on the appeals that the Court of Appeal should reassess damages. How, as a practical matter, could the Court of Appeal do that in an appeal concerning a single matter where the interrelationship of issues regarding credit and damages in the other matters is such that deciding damages on a single appeal without referring to issues in the other appeals would be impossible.
Next, if I were to grant the present applications, it is clear that the separate appeals could not all be completed in the time presently allocated by the court which is, at present, 16 to 18 May 2022. The first of the incidents giving rise to the proceedings before her Honour occurred on 18 January 2012 while the last was on 25 January 2018 and, as I have already mentioned, the matter commenced before her Honour on 18 February 2019. This matter has thus already had something of a lengthy history and, in such circumstances, it becomes even more important than usual that the matter is resolved to finality without delay.
I am, of course, conscious that Mr Ryan says that his various medical issues will adversely affect his ability to conduct all the five appeals in three days. He suggests today that what could occur on the appeal is that he be entitled to submit his arguments both in-chief and in reply in relation to each of the five incidents separately. That is a matter that can be taken up with the judges hearing the appeals. It may be that some accommodation may be given to Mr Ryan if the need for such accommodation is demonstrated.
For those reasons, the orders I make in each matter are that the application of the appellant is dismissed
In each matter Mr Ryan is to pay the costs to the respondent.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen [13] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Berman Associate: Date: |
0