Moran v Moran & 4 Ors [1999] NSWSC 977

Moran v Moran & 4 Ors [1999] NSWSC 977

The defendants did not establish that the prejudicial effect of publicity would prevent a fair jury trial, because properly directed jurors could be expected to decide the case on the evidence. Nor did they establish that the psychiatric or accounting expert evidence was of such volume or complexity that it would be impracticable for a jury to assess it. Even taken together, the grounds did not justify dispensing with the jury under s89.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897; Application Under S89(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to Try All Issues Without a Jury / Pre Trial Application to Dispense With Jury
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['trial by Jury' 'dispensing With Jury' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'expert Evidence' 'psychiatric Evidence' 'economic Loss Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'torts' 'compensation to Relatives'] ['trial by Jury' 'dispensing With Jury' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'expert Evidence' 'psychiatric Evidence' 'economic Loss Evidence']

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

Civil Proceedings Under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897; Application Under S89(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to Try All Issues Without a Jury / Pre Trial Application to Dispense With Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether adverse publicity about the defendants meant the proceedings could not fairly be tried by a jury' 'Whether conflicting psychiatric and accounting expert evidence was so detailed or complex that it could not practicably be resolved by a jury' 'Whether the grounds advanced, separately or in combination, justified an order under s89(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 that all issues be tried without a jury']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not establish that the prejudicial effect of publicity would prevent a fair jury trial, because properly directed jurors could be expected to decide the case on the evidence. Nor did they establish that the psychiatric or accounting expert evidence was of such volume or complexity that it would be impracticable for a jury to assess it. Even taken together, the grounds did not justify dispensing with the jury under s89.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application under s89 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 refused']