Kalipoll Pty Limited v TMG Developments Pty LimitedFish20 Pty Limited v TMG Developments Pty LimitedBread of France (NSW) Pty Limited v TMG Developments Pty Limited [2006] NSWDC 111

Kalipoll Pty Limited v TMG Developments Pty LimitedFish20 Pty Limited v TMG Developments Pty LimitedBread of France (NSW) Pty Limited v TMG Developments Pty Limited [2006] NSWDC 111

The motions were refused because the admissibility of similar fact, tendency or coincidence evidence would be a significant issue at trial, and if the proceedings were heard together the trial judge might have to hear approximately 60 separate oral communications and then separate the evidence physically and mentally between three claims if objections were upheld, making the task too cumbersome and onerous and prolonging the trial. Consolidation was also inappropriate because it could unjustly prevent the defendant from making good its objection and would limit the plaintiffs' claims to the Court's jurisdictional amount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Applications by Notices of Motion for Proceedings to Be Heard Together, Alternatively Consolidated, Alternatively Joined / Interlocutory Motions
Outcome
All three motions dismissed.
Legal Topics
['proceedings Heard Together' 'consolidation' 'joinder' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'misrepresentation' 'trade Practices Act Claims']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'trade Practices'] ['proceedings Heard Together' 'consolidation' 'joinder' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'misrepresentation' 'trade Practices Act Claims']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications by Notices of Motion for Proceedings to Be Heard Together, Alternatively Consolidated, Alternatively Joined / Interlocutory Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the three proceedings should be heard together under Part 28 Rule 5(a) or 5(c).' 'Whether the proceedings should alternatively be consolidated or joined.' 'Whether the likely contest about admissibility of similar fact, tendency or coincidence evidence made it inappropriate to hear the proceedings together.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motions were refused because the admissibility of similar fact, tendency or coincidence evidence would be a significant issue at trial, and if the proceedings were heard together the trial judge might have to hear approximately 60 separate oral communications and then separate the evidence physically and mentally between three claims if objections were upheld, making the task too cumbersome and onerous and prolonging the trial. Consolidation was also inappropriate because it could unjustly prevent the defendant from making good its objection and would limit the plaintiffs' claims to the Court's jurisdictional amount.

Court Disposition

All three motions dismissed.

Orders

  • ['All three motions are dismissed.' 'Costs should follow the event on the ordinary basis.' 'The exhibits are to be returned.']