CRAWLEY v VERO INSURANCE LTD & ORS [2012] NSWSC 593

CRAWLEY v VERO INSURANCE LTD & ORS [2012] NSWSC 593

The Court held that, given the substantial likelihood of apportionment and evidentiary complexity regarding the costs in sub-paragraphs 10(t) and 10(u) of the Amended Statement of Claim, and the potential to avoid wasted effort and cost, these items should be decided separately after the trial of all other issues. The defendant's motion for a broader separation (including fixed monetary liabilities) was not warranted. The hearing and determination of the separate question will be more efficient post-trial resolution of liability.

Parties
Plaintiff: Christopher William Crawley; Defendant: Vero Insurance Ltd; Plaintiff: Bruce Stewart Dimarco Lawyers; Defendant: Colin Biggers & Paisley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Separate Determination of Question
Outcome
Order for separate determination of question (regarding amounts in 10(t) and 10(u) of ASOC) after trial of all other issues; defendant's notice of motion otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Separate Questions, Apportionment of Quantum, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Costs Orders
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Separate Questions Apportionment of Quantum Professional Indemnity Insurance Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher William Crawley

Plaintiff

Vero Insurance Ltd

Defendant

Bruce Stewart Dimarco Lawyers

Plaintiff

Colin Biggers & Paisley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Separate Determination of Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether quantum (specifically, items relating to legal costs in sub-paragraphs 10(t) and 10(u) of the Amended Statement of Claim) should be determined separately from liability
  2. 2 Whether apportionment of amounts payable under the indemnity policy requires substantial evidence and separate hearing
  3. 3 Whether preparation for hearing is hampered by potential apportionment of monetary liabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, given the substantial likelihood of apportionment and evidentiary complexity regarding the costs in sub-paragraphs 10(t) and 10(u) of the Amended Statement of Claim, and the potential to avoid wasted effort and cost, these items should be decided separately after the trial of all other issues. The defendant's motion for a broader separation (including fixed monetary liabilities) was not warranted. The hearing and determination of the separate question will be more efficient post-trial resolution of liability.

Court Disposition

Order for separate determination of question (regarding amounts in 10(t) and 10(u) of ASOC) after trial of all other issues; defendant's notice of motion otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • That the question of 'what amount, if any, of the items specified in sub-paragraphs 10(t) and 10(u) of the Amended Statement of Claim can the plaintiff or the cross-claimant recover?' be decided separately after the trial of all other issues.
  • Defendant's notice of motion filed 26 March 2012 otherwise dismissed.