Loretta Craig & Ors v Anthony Johnson & Ors [2019] NSWSC 223

Loretta Craig & Ors v Anthony Johnson & Ors [2019] NSWSC 223

Because the plaintiffs' evidentiary position was not finalised and depended on the outcome of the Court of Appeal process concerning privileged material that could affect liability and causation issues, it would be unfair to require the defendants to serve lay witness statements before that position was clarified. The appropriate course was to vacate the existing evidence timetable and list the matter for further directions in April with liberty to apply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceedings Seeking Damages for Negligence / Directions Hearing and Case Management Orders Pending Application for Leave to Appeal/appeal Concerning Access to Privileged Documents and Pending Motion for Separate Determination
Outcome
Case management orders made; existing directions hearing and defendants' evidence deadline vacated; matter stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['service of Lay Evidence' 'case Management Orders' 'separate Determination of Liability and Quantum' 'privileged Documents' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence'] ['service of Lay Evidence' 'case Management Orders' 'separate Determination of Liability and Quantum' 'privileged Documents' 'overriding Purpose']

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

Professional Negligence Proceedings Seeking Damages for Negligence / Directions Hearing and Case Management Orders Pending Application for Leave to Appeal/appeal Concerning Access to Privileged Documents and Pending Motion for Separate Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be required to file and serve lay witness statements before the appeal concerning access to privileged material is determined.' 'Whether to set a timetable immediately for finalisation of lay evidence or list the matter for further directions after the likely timing or result of the appeal is known.' "How to manage the plaintiffs' application under UCPR 28 r 2 for separation of assessment of quantum of loss from determination of liability."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs' evidentiary position was not finalised and depended on the outcome of the Court of Appeal process concerning privileged material that could affect liability and causation issues, it would be unfair to require the defendants to serve lay witness statements before that position was clarified. The appropriate course was to vacate the existing evidence timetable and list the matter for further directions in April with liberty to apply.

Court Disposition

Case management orders made; existing directions hearing and defendants' evidence deadline vacated; matter stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['The Directions Hearing listed at 10:30 am on 28 February 2019 is vacated.' 'The order that the defendants file their evidence by 22 February 2019 (order 7 made on 4 December 2018), is vacated.' 'The matter be listed for further directions at 9:00 am on Tuesday, 9 April 2019 before me.' 'The parties have liberty to...