Lasermax Engineering Pty Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1268

Lasermax Engineering Pty Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1268

The separate question was suitable and ripe for determination on agreed and assumed facts, and its determination had sufficient practical utility under the overriding purpose rule because it could substantially narrow the controversy, avoid expensive investigations and expert evidence concerning alleged fire in the laser rectifiers, and affect whether and how the insurers would continue in the litigation. Because remaining factual and damages issues might affect all parties, the third defendant should also be a party to the separate question determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application Under Pt 31 R 2 of the Supreme Court Rules for Determination of Separate Questions / Notice of Motion in Proceedings in the Equity Division, Commercial List
Outcome
Orders made for determination of a separate question; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['separate Determination of Questions' 'supreme Court Rules Pt 31 R 2' 'insurance Indemnity for Fire Damage' 'causation' 'power Surge Damage' 'subrogated Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'insurance' 'negligence'] ['separate Determination of Questions' 'supreme Court Rules Pt 31 R 2' 'insurance Indemnity for Fire Damage' 'causation' 'power Surge Damage' 'subrogated Claim']

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

Practice and Procedure; Application Under Pt 31 R 2 of the Supreme Court Rules for Determination of Separate Questions / Notice of Motion in Proceedings in the Equity Division, Commercial List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether issues between the plaintiff and the first and second defendants should be determined separately and before issues between the plaintiff and the third defendant.' 'Whether the question whether damage to the laser was directly caused, within the meaning of the policy, by the fire on the power pole should be determined separately before other issues.' 'Whether making a separate question order would facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The separate question was suitable and ripe for determination on agreed and assumed facts, and its determination had sufficient practical utility under the overriding purpose rule because it could substantially narrow the controversy, avoid expensive investigations and expert evidence concerning alleged fire in the laser rectifiers, and affect whether and how the insurers would continue in the litigation. Because remaining factual and damages issues might affect all parties, the third defendant should also be a party to the separate question determination.

Court Disposition

Orders made for determination of a separate question; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The following question was ordered to be determined separately and before the determination of any other issue in the proceedings on the basis of agreed and assumed facts: "Was the damage to the Laser referred to in sub-paragraph 1(12) directly caused, within the meaning of the Policy, by the fire referred to in...