Nankervis v Ulan Coal Miles Ltd & Anor [1999] NSWSC 899

Nankervis v Ulan Coal Miles Ltd & Anor [1999] NSWSC 899

The jury was dispensed with because the combined multiple liability, contractual, contributory negligence, apportionment, expert evidence and damages issues were so complex that the matter could not be conveniently or properly determined by a jury, and a jury trial would significantly lengthen the trial and likely cause delay. The cross-claims were not separated because the indemnity and contribution issues were intrinsically linked to the plaintiff's case and could be conveniently heard in a non-jury trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages for Personal Injuries / Motion for Orders Dispensing With the Jury and for Separate Hearing of Cross Claims
Outcome
Jury dispensed with; application to separate cross-claims declined; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['jury Trial' 'separate Trial of Cross Claims' 'contributory Negligence' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contribution or Indemnity' 'assessment of Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'negligence' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['jury Trial' 'separate Trial of Cross Claims' 'contributory Negligence' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contribution or Indemnity' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Claim for Damages for Personal Injuries / Motion for Orders Dispensing With the Jury and for Separate Hearing of Cross Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be dispensed with in the proceeding.' "Whether the cross-claims brought by the two defendants against each other should be heard separately from the plaintiff's action." 'Whether the complexity and number of liability and damages issues made the matter unsuitable for determination by a jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was dispensed with because the combined multiple liability, contractual, contributory negligence, apportionment, expert evidence and damages issues were so complex that the matter could not be conveniently or properly determined by a jury, and a jury trial would significantly lengthen the trial and likely cause delay. The cross-claims were not separated because the indemnity and contribution issues were intrinsically linked to the plaintiff's case and could be conveniently heard in a non-jury trial.

Court Disposition

Jury dispensed with; application to separate cross-claims declined; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The jury will be dispensed with.' 'Costs reserved.']