Moran v Moran [1999] NSWSC 1103

Moran v Moran [1999] NSWSC 1103

The two actions arose from the same circumstances and involved substantial common evidence. Although they involved different bases of liability and different considerations for damages, a properly instructed jury could cope with the multiple issues and could consider the evidence dispassionately despite any emotional content. A joint jury trial would not be unfair, and separate jury trials would be unduly expensive and time consuming.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings: Compensation to Relatives Act Claim and Nervous Shock Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File an Out of Time Jury Requisition and for the Two Actions to Be Heard Together
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion granted; actions to be tried together by jury; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['trial by Jury' 'joinder or Joint Trial of Actions' 'out of Time Jury Requisition' 'compensation to Relatives' 'nervous Shock' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['trial by Jury' 'joinder or Joint Trial of Actions' 'out of Time Jury Requisition' 'compensation to Relatives' 'nervous Shock' 'costs']

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 Proceedings: Compensation to Relatives Act Claim and Nervous Shock Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File an Out of Time Jury Requisition and for the Two Actions to Be Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should have leave to file out of time a requisition for a jury in the trial of the nervous shock action.' 'Whether the Compensation to Relatives Act action and the nervous shock action should be heard together by the same jury.' 'Whether a joint jury trial would be unfair because of multiple issues or emotional evidence.' 'Whether the defendants should pay costs of the motion on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The two actions arose from the same circumstances and involved substantial common evidence. Although they involved different bases of liability and different considerations for damages, a properly instructed jury could cope with the multiple issues and could consider the evidence dispassionately despite any emotional content. A joint jury trial would not be unfair, and separate jury trials would be unduly expensive and time consuming.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion granted; actions to be tried together by jury; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to file out of time a requisition for a jury in the trial of the nervous shock action.' 'The Compensation to Relatives Act action and the nervous shock action are to be heard together by jury.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion." 'Indemnity costs refused.']