Latteria Holdings Pty Ltd v Corcoran Parker Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1378

Latteria Holdings Pty Ltd v Corcoran Parker Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1378

The application for determination of a separate question was refused because no agreed or established factual foundation was provided, the question involved assumptions of fact and law not suitable for preliminary determination, and the proposed procedure would not result in efficiency, narrowing of issues, or avoidance of unnecessary cost, but rather would fragment the proceeding and was not just and convenient. The evidence about alleged concurrent wrongdoer Lucas O'Brien was not admissible or probative, and the preconditions for joinder or separate question procedure were not satisfied.

Parties
Applicant: Latteria Holdings Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Corcoran Parker Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Darren Askew
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Substantive Proceeding for Breach of Contract, Duty of Care, and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Application for Hearing and Determination of a Separate Question Prior to Trial; Refusal of Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Separate Questions, Proportionate Liability, Joinder of Parties, Case Management
Practice and Procedure Contracts Torts Consumer Law Separate Questions Proportionate Liability Joinder of Parties Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Latteria Holdings Pty Ltd

Applicant

Corcoran Parker Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Darren Askew

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Substantive Proceeding for Breach of Contract, Duty of Care, and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Application for Hearing and Determination of a Separate Question Prior to Trial; Refusal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and convenient to determine a separate question under r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed separate question regarding apportionable claims and proportionate liability should be determined before trial
  3. 3 If the separate question is not appropriate, whether Lucas James O'Brien should be joined as a party

Ratio Decidendi

The application for determination of a separate question was refused because no agreed or established factual foundation was provided, the question involved assumptions of fact and law not suitable for preliminary determination, and the proposed procedure would not result in efficiency, narrowing of issues, or avoidance of unnecessary cost, but rather would fragment the proceeding and was not just and convenient. The evidence about alleged concurrent wrongdoer Lucas O'Brien was not admissible or probative, and the preconditions for joinder or separate question procedure were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The respondents have leave to file and serve an amended defence in the form annexed to the affidavit of Mr Jonathan Shakenovsky sworn 11 December 2014.
  • The application for the determination of a separate question pursuant to r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) is refused.