Manday Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) [2012] FCA 283

Manday Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) [2012] FCA 283

The trial dates were vacated because recent non-minor amendments to the applicants' pleading, outstanding disputes about particularisation, reliance on expert evidence contrary to the basis on which the five-day trial estimate had been set, and unresolved issues concerning damages and evidence meant the matter was not ready for trial. The provisionally extended dates were also subject to availability of senior counsel for the first respondent, who was unavailable through no fault of the first respondent, and the applicants identified no particular prejudice beyond delay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding; Interlocutory Application by the First Respondent to Vacate Trial Dates / Determined on the Papers Before Trial
Outcome
The first respondent's application to vacate the June 2012 trial dates was granted, and the matter was to be listed for directions and interlocutory hearings.
Legal Topics
['vacation of Trial Dates' 'unfinalised Pleadings' 'late Expert Evidence' 'availability of Senior Counsel' 'assessment of Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'case Management' 'evidence' 'damages'] ['vacation of Trial Dates' 'unfinalised Pleadings' 'late Expert Evidence' 'availability of Senior Counsel' 'assessment of Damages']

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 Proceeding; Interlocutory Application by the First Respondent to Vacate Trial Dates / Determined on the Papers Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial dates of 5 June 2012 to 15 June 2012 should be vacated in light of an unfinalised statement of claim, recent substantial amendments, late expert evidence and uncertainty about the applicants' case." 'Whether the unavailability of senior counsel for the first respondent during the provisionally extended trial period was a relevant reason to vacate the trial dates.' 'Whether interlocutory issues about pleadings, expert evidence and damages should be resolved before trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial dates were vacated because recent non-minor amendments to the applicants' pleading, outstanding disputes about particularisation, reliance on expert evidence contrary to the basis on which the five-day trial estimate had been set, and unresolved issues concerning damages and evidence meant the matter was not ready for trial. The provisionally extended dates were also subject to availability of senior counsel for the first respondent, who was unavailable through no fault of the first respondent, and the applicants identified no particular prejudice beyond delay.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's application to vacate the June 2012 trial dates was granted, and the matter was to be listed for directions and interlocutory hearings.

Orders

  • ['The trial dates of 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 June 2012 be vacated.' 'The matter be listed for directions and interlocutory hearings.']