H M & O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram (No.2) [2011] NSWSC 564

H M & O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram (No.2) [2011] NSWSC 564

Given the extensive factual and expert disputes regarding technical compliance with the Australian Standard, and in view of the need for efficient management and minimisation of court time and cost, it is appropriate to refer the question of compliance (as pleaded, but excluding paragraph 29(j) and the defence thereto) to a referee with legal training, namely the Honourable J M N Rolfe QC.

Parties
First Plaintiff: H M & O Investments Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Teach & Play Pty Limited; First Defendant: Bradley Phillip Ingram; Second Defendant: Glenda Louise Ingram
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List / Interlocutory Order for Reference Out
Outcome
Order for reference out of question of compliance as defined by the pleadings (excluding paragraph 29(j) and the defence thereto) to the Honourable J M N Rolfe QC as referee, with consequential directions for evidence and bringing in draft orders.
Legal Topics
Reference Out, Case Management, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Evidence, Expert Evidence
Practice and Procedure Reference Out Case Management Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Evidence Expert Evidence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H M & O Investments Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Teach & Play Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Bradley Phillip Ingram

First Defendant

Glenda Louise Ingram

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Commercial List / Interlocutory Order for Reference Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether questions of compliance with Australian Standard AS4685.1/2004 regarding playground equipment should be referred to a referee
  2. 2 How to best manage the technical factual disputes and expert disagreements regarding compliance
  3. 3 Whether the question of compliance is best suited to a technical or legally qualified referee

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extensive factual and expert disputes regarding technical compliance with the Australian Standard, and in view of the need for efficient management and minimisation of court time and cost, it is appropriate to refer the question of compliance (as pleaded, but excluding paragraph 29(j) and the defence thereto) to a referee with legal training, namely the Honourable J M N Rolfe QC.

Court Disposition

Order for reference out of question of compliance as defined by the pleadings (excluding paragraph 29(j) and the defence thereto) to the Honourable J M N Rolfe QC as referee, with consequential directions for evidence and bringing in draft orders.

Orders

  • Questions of compliance to be referred to the Honourable J M N Rolfe QC as referee as per the definition set out in the reasons, excluding paragraph 29(j) and the defence thereto.
  • Evidence taken before the court to be evidence before the referee to the extent relevant.