DOUGLAS J HOLLAND PTY LIMITED v HOLLAND [1997] NSWCA 92
The Court declined to make an order limiting the new trial to certain issues, reasoning that the Tribunal was best placed to manage and narrow the issues at the re-trial under its discretionary powers, given the existing concessions and findings.
- Parties
- First Defendant: Douglas J Holland Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff: Arthur Norman Holland
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 June 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application Following Appeal Judgment, Before New Trial
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; no order limiting the scope of the new trial made
- Legal Topics
- Asbestosis, Causation, Damages, Procedure for New Trial
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Douglas J Holland Pty Limited
First Defendant
Commonwealth of Australia
Second Defendant
Arthur Norman Holland
Plaintiff
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application Following Appeal Judgment, Before New Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order for new trial should be limited to damages or the issue of asbestosis only
- 2 Whether the issues in the new trial can be narrowed based on concessions and findings not challenged or already established
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined to make an order limiting the new trial to certain issues, reasoning that the Tribunal was best placed to manage and narrow the issues at the re-trial under its discretionary powers, given the existing concessions and findings.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; no order limiting the scope of the new trial made
Orders
- No order limiting the issues for the new trial is made
- Each party bears its own costs of the application
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment