Stewart v Ronalds & Anor [2009] NSWSC 455

Stewart v Ronalds & Anor [2009] NSWSC 455

The Court ordered separate determination because the framed questions were discrete, significant and difficult questions of law depending on agreed facts and primary documents, and a definitive ruling would efficiently avoid a trial on some or all issues, conserve court and party resources, and accord with the objectives in sections 56 - 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The Court removed the proceedings into the Court of Appeal because the first and second questions were not directly governed by existing authority and raised issues of constitutional significance to New South Wales requiring authoritative resolution; the duty of care question also raised issues of incompatibility and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Proceedings Concerning Withdrawal of Ministerial Commissions, Natural Justice and Negligence / Notice of Motion by the Defendants for Questions to Be Stated for Separate Determination Pursuant to Rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and for the Proceedings to Be Referred to the Court of Appeal Pursuant to Rule 1.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Outcome
Motion granted; four questions ordered to be heard and determined separately; proceedings removed into the Court of Appeal; ancillary orders made.
Legal Topics
['separate Determination of Questions' 'removal to Court of Appeal' 'justiciability' 'natural Justice' 'common Law Duty of Care' 'parliamentary Privilege and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688']
['constitutional Law' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'administrative Law'] ['separate Determination of Questions' 'removal to Court of Appeal' 'justiciability' 'natural Justice' 'common Law Duty of Care' 'parliamentary Privilege and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688']

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

Supreme Court Proceedings Concerning Withdrawal of Ministerial Commissions, Natural Justice and Negligence / Notice of Motion by the Defendants for Questions to Be Stated for Separate Determination Pursuant to Rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and for the Proceedings to Be Referred to the Court of Appeal Pursuant to Rule 1.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's claims in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the statement of claim are justiciable." 'If the claims are justiciable, whether the plaintiff was owed a duty of natural justice as alleged in paragraphs 16 and 19 of the statement of claim.' 'Whether a duty of care at common law was owed by the first defendant to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim.' "Whether the plaintiff's claims in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the statement of claim impermissibly seek to call into question the contents of the first defendant's report in a manner inconsistent with parliamentary privilege and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688." 'Whether the identified questions should be heard and determined separately before any other question in the proceedings.' 'Whether the proceedings should be removed into the Court of Appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered separate determination because the framed questions were discrete, significant and difficult questions of law depending on agreed facts and primary documents, and a definitive ruling would efficiently avoid a trial on some or all issues, conserve court and party resources, and accord with the objectives in sections 56 - 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The Court removed the proceedings into the Court of Appeal because the first and second questions were not directly governed by existing authority and raised issues of constitutional significance to New South Wales requiring authoritative resolution; the duty of care question also raised issues of incompatibility and...

Court Disposition

Motion granted; four questions ordered to be heard and determined separately; proceedings removed into the Court of Appeal; ancillary orders made.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the following questions be heard and determined separately and before any other question in the proceedings: (i) Are the plaintiff's claims in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the statement of claim justiciable? (ii) If so, was the plaintiff owed a duty of natural...