GIO Australia Holdings Ltd v. Stewart Horner Steffey [2001] NSWSC 928

GIO Australia Holdings Ltd v. Stewart Horner Steffey [2001] NSWSC 928

The proposed separate question would not bring GIO's proceedings or Mr Steffey's second cross claim to an end or materially shorten them, and its trial would involve heavily disputed factual matters common to the main proceedings, including whether Mr Steffey breached his duties and whether any breach was wilful within Clause 4(d) of the Heath Policy. Because the question depended on hypotheses about an insurance policy not in fact issued, raised complex issues of fact and credit, risked fragmentation, duplication, appeals, delay and futility, the Court refused separate determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Determination of a Separate Question in Supreme Court Proceedings / Application Under Part 31 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules
Outcome
Application for trial of separate question refused.
Legal Topics
['separate Question' "directors' Duties" 'success Fee Agreements' 'directors and Officers Insurance' 'wilful Breach of Duty' 'equitable Set Off']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'insurance' 'contract'] ['separate Question' "directors' Duties" 'success Fee Agreements' 'directors and Officers Insurance' 'wilful Breach of Duty' 'equitable Set Off']

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

Notice of Motion for Determination of a Separate Question in Supreme Court Proceedings / Application Under Part 31 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order that Mr Steffey's proposed question concerning advancement of defence costs and expenses under the Heath Policy be decided separately from and prior to any other question in the proceedings." 'Whether determination of the proposed separate question would bring the proceedings to an end, shorten the trial, or otherwise be beneficial in the conduct and resolution of the proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed separate question involved disputed factual issues, issues of credit, hypothesis, and a risk of futility such that separate determination should be refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed separate question would not bring GIO's proceedings or Mr Steffey's second cross claim to an end or materially shorten them, and its trial would involve heavily disputed factual matters common to the main proceedings, including whether Mr Steffey breached his duties and whether any breach was wilful within Clause 4(d) of the Heath Policy. Because the question depended on hypotheses about an insurance policy not in fact issued, raised complex issues of fact and credit, risked fragmentation, duplication, appeals, delay and futility, the Court refused separate determination.

Court Disposition

Application for trial of separate question refused.

Orders

  • ["The order sought in paragraph 1 of Mr Steffey's Notice of Motion filed on 3 July 2001 was refused." 'The relief sought in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Motion was refused.' 'The Motion was stood over to a date to be fixed for argument as to the relief sought in paragraph 3.' 'Submissions as to costs of the Motion...