Stepic v Sydney Water Corporation Ltd and Ors [2005] NSWDDT 55

It is sensible and cost-effective that the question of whether the Deed of Release operates as a bar to the plaintiff's proceedings be tried separately, and orders to that effect are granted.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 October 2005
Procedural Posture: Dust Diseases Claim / Ruling on Application for Separate Trial
Outcome: Application for separate trial granted
Legal Topics: ['dust Diseases' 'deed of Release' 'separate Trial' 'application' 'compensation' 'contracts Review']

['tort' 'workers Compensation' 'contract'] ['dust Diseases' 'deed of Release' 'separate Trial' 'application' 'compensation' 'contracts Review']

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

Procedural Posture

Dust Diseases Claim / Ruling on Application for Separate Trial

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether a Deed of Release operates as a bar to the plaintiff's proceedings" 'Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process']

Ratio Decidendi

It is sensible and cost-effective that the question of whether the Deed of Release operates as a bar to the plaintiff's proceedings be tried separately, and orders to that effect are granted.

Court Disposition

Application for separate trial granted

Orders

['Orders 1, 2 and 5 of the notice of motion filed 6 October 2005 granted' 'By consent, Orders 1 to 5 as in short minutes of order filed in court 17 October 2005 made' '12 December 2005 appointed as day for separate determination of the issue regarding the Deed of Release']