Green and anor v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd and ors No 3 [2004] NSWIRComm 264

Green and anor v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd and ors No 3 [2004] NSWIRComm 264

The application to split the proceedings was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that there was a clear demarcation between the proposed unfairness, avoidance and variation issues and the monetary compensation issues. Loss, detriment, indemnity and mitigation were potentially intricately bound up with whether the contracts were or became unfair and whether they should be avoided or varied, and at least one witness was common to both sets of issues. Splitting the case was therefore not shown to be likely to achieve a more cost effective or efficient determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Application by Applicants to Split the Case by Separating Unfairness, Avoidance and Variation Issues From Monetary Compensation Issues
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs not determined, with liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'case Management' 'monetary Compensation' 'mitigation of Loss']
['industrial Relations' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Contract' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'case Management' 'monetary Compensation' 'mitigation of Loss']

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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Application by Applicants to Split the Case by Separating Unfairness, Avoidance and Variation Issues From Monetary Compensation Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' claims concerning unfairness, avoidance and variation of the contracts should be heard separately from their claim for monetary compensation under s 106(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996." 'Whether there was a clear demarcation between the proposed separate issues and the remaining issues in the proceedings.' 'Whether common witnesses and intertwined factual and legal issues made splitting the case inappropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to split the proceedings was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that there was a clear demarcation between the proposed unfairness, avoidance and variation issues and the monetary compensation issues. Loss, detriment, indemnity and mitigation were potentially intricately bound up with whether the contracts were or became unfair and whether they should be avoided or varied, and at least one witness was common to both sets of issues. Splitting the case was therefore not shown to be likely to achieve a more cost effective or efficient determination.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs not determined, with liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' application to split the case is dismissed." 'Liberty to apply as to costs if the parties cannot reach a sensible resolution of that issue.' 'The Court will make orders in chambers reflecting any reasonable consent timetable to progress the proceedings, otherwise the proceedings may be re-listed by...