Walters v Perton (No 3)

Walters sought an order for the trial of separate questions concerning whether the defendant owed a duty of care to him and, if so, whether that duty was breached. Perton opposed the application. The Supreme Court of Victoria considered the application under r 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). The court identified the key legal issue as whether the application should be granted, considering the principles in Murphy v State of Victoria & Anor and the relevant case law. The court noted that the granting of such an order is not automatic and requires consideration of the factors outlined in Monty Financial Services Ltd v Delmo and Hoh v Ying Mui Pty Ltd. It concluded that the application should be dismissed because it did not meet the necessary criteria.

The court held that the application for the trial of separate questions was not warranted as the issues were not suitable for bifurcation. The court found that the determination of liability and the assessment of damages were interlinked and required a comprehensive assessment of all the evidence and arguments. It also considered the potential for prejudice to the parties if the questions were tried separately. The court was satisfied that the application did not meet the stringent requirements set out in the relevant case law. Therefore, it dismissed the application and emphasised that such orders should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear advantage to trying the issues separately.