Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd

The case of Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd involved the first plaintiff suing for damages for personal injuries suffered due to his work with engineered stone, with the second plaintiff, the wife, suing for loss of consortium. The defendants neglected to nominate independent medical examination (IME) panels for some eighteen months, despite directions from the deputy registrar. The defendants later provided an occupational hygienist's report, to which the plaintiffs responded with their own report. The plaintiffs then served a request for a trial date, which the defendants refused to sign, subsequently nominating IME panels and complaining about the lateness of the plaintiffs' report. The court was required to decide whether the defendants' signatures on the request for trial date should be dispensed with, considering the procedural history and the parties' arguments.

The court found the defendants' delay in nominating IME panels and their complaints about the lateness of the plaintiffs' report to be disingenuous, especially given the first plaintiff's life expectancy of 34 and a half years. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court directions and the need for the matter to proceed without further delay. The plaintiffs' urgency in obtaining a damages award for the first plaintiff's treatment and comfort was deemed reasonable. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments about the relative urgency of other engineered stone cases and the fairness of prioritising this case were irrelevant. The court ultimately decided that the defendants' signatures on the request for trial date should be dispensed with, allowing the case to proceed.

The court's orders included dispensing with the defendants' signatures on the request for trial date, allowing the defendants to deliver a report by an occupational hygienist by a specified date, placing the proceedings on the Supervised Case List, and setting timelines for the filing and serving of written submissions on the costs of the application. Any party could file a notice of intention to make oral submissions on costs, but if no such notice was filed, the question of costs would be determined based on the written submissions without further oral argument.