Bass v Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia - NSW Branch & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 88

Bass v Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia - NSW Branch & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 88

The motion was dismissed because, on balance, it was not just and convenient to sever liability and quantum. The proceeding was unusual and not a typical personal injury matter; substantial loss and damage appeared to be an essential ingredient of the s 45D claim; intimidation, conspiracy and aggravated damages were pleaded; the manner of the alleged acts could be directly relevant to damages; two long trials would likely create more delay than one long trial; witness overlap could not be discounted; and the case had not been sufficiently prepared to formulate agreed issues in dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Separate Determination on the Issues of Liability and Quantum / Pre Trial Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['separate Determination of Liability and Quantum' 'section 45 D Trade Practices Act Claim' 'conspiracy' 'intimidation' 'interference With Contract' 'aggravated Damages' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'torts' 'industrial Law'] ['separate Determination of Liability and Quantum' 'section 45 D Trade Practices Act Claim' 'conspiracy' 'intimidation' 'interference With Contract' 'aggravated Damages' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Separate Determination on the Issues of Liability and Quantum / Pre Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the issues of liability and quantum should be determined separately.' 'Whether it was just and convenient to sever liability and quantum in a complex industrial tort and Trade Practices Act proceeding involving aggravated damages.' 'Whether separate trials would save costs and time or instead create delay, evidentiary overlap and possible multiple hearings or appeals.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because, on balance, it was not just and convenient to sever liability and quantum. The proceeding was unusual and not a typical personal injury matter; substantial loss and damage appeared to be an essential ingredient of the s 45D claim; intimidation, conspiracy and aggravated damages were pleaded; the manner of the alleged acts could be directly relevant to damages; two long trials would likely create more delay than one long trial; witness overlap could not be discounted; and the case had not been sufficiently prepared to formulate agreed issues in dispute.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 17 December 1998 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs."]