Slea Pty Ltd v Connective Services Pty Ltd; Mortgage Results Pty Ltd v Millsave Holdings Pty Ltd

Slea Pty Ltd and Mortgage Results Pty Ltd sought to consolidate two separate proceedings for determination. The defendants, Connective Services Pty Ltd and Millsave Holdings Pty Ltd, opposed consolidation. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants argued that common questions of fact and law existed between the proceedings and that consolidating them would avoid inconsistent findings and the risk of prejudice from adverse credit findings in the first proceeding affecting the second. The defendants contended that consolidation was not appropriate as it could result in prejudice due to the delay in resolving the second proceeding.

The court examined whether the proceedings shared common questions of fact or law and if consolidating them posed a risk of inconsistent findings. It also considered if there was a risk of prejudice from adverse credit findings in the first proceeding affecting the second. The applicants argued that consolidation would promote efficiency and avoid potential prejudice. The defendants, however, emphasised the risk of delay and the potential for prejudice from the timing of the proceedings.

The court found that while there were some common issues, the proceedings were distinct enough to warrant separate hearings. The risk of inconsistent findings was not sufficiently compelling to warrant consolidation. Moreover, the court determined that the risk of prejudice from delay and adverse credit findings in the first proceeding was not a strong enough factor to compel consolidation. The application was therefore refused.

The Supreme Court ordered that the two proceedings be heard sequentially, denying the application for consolidation. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the need for judicial efficiency with the potential risks of prejudice and delay in separate proceedings.