Scott MacRae Investments Pty Ltd v Baylily Pty Ltd

The appeal before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerned a dispute between Scott MacRae Investments Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Baylily Pty Ltd and PLP (the respondents). The appellant sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge which had refused its applications for summary judgment and judgment on admissions, and had instead ordered the decision of separate questions. The appellant contended that the primary judge's reasons for refusing these applications were inadequate and that the procedure adopted was inappropriate.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant summary judgment, whether there were sufficient admissions to warrant judgment on admissions, and whether the decision to order the determination of separate questions was justified and adequately reasoned. The court also considered the admissibility of evidence, specifically a copy minute of a resolution tendered as a business record, and the appropriateness of an indemnity costs order against a successful respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's reasons for refusing judgment on admissions were inadequate, as the statements relied upon by the appellant did not constitute clear admissions of entitlement to relief or the underlying facts. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence presented to prove the business record was inadmissible as it was based on information and belief and not an interlocutory proceeding. The court also concluded that the situation was not appropriate for the decision of separate questions and that the primary judge had failed to give adequate reasons for this procedural step, thereby failing to afford procedural fairness.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal against the order for the decision of separate questions, setting aside that order. The court also allowed a cross-appeal, setting aside an earlier order and ordering that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the respondents in relation to the amended notice of motion. The applicants/appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the applications for leave and of the appeal and cross-appeal.