Nurrish v McDonald [2013] NSWSC 420

Nurrish v McDonald [2013] NSWSC 420

Because all parties supported or consented to the proposed severance, the allegations of negligence against the third and fourth defendants were completely separate and distinct from those against the first and second defendants, and the proposed orders would further the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues, the Court exercised its discretion to separate and separately determine the claim against the third and fourth defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Common Law Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion by the Fourth Defendant Seeking Severance of the Claim Against the Third and Fourth Defendants
Outcome
Orders sought in the motion granted, except no order was made that the proceedings be heard by the same Judge.
Legal Topics
['severance' 'separate Determination' 'case Management' 'costs in the Cause']
['civil Procedure'] ['severance' 'separate Determination' 'case Management' 'costs in the Cause']

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

Common Law Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion by the Fourth Defendant Seeking Severance of the Claim Against the Third and Fourth Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claim against the third and fourth defendants should be separated from the proceedings and separately determined.' 'Whether the separated claim should be heard after the claim against the first and second defendants and case managed together with it.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because all parties supported or consented to the proposed severance, the allegations of negligence against the third and fourth defendants were completely separate and distinct from those against the first and second defendants, and the proposed orders would further the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues, the Court exercised its discretion to separate and separately determine the claim against the third and fourth defendants.

Court Disposition

Orders sought in the motion granted, except no order was made that the proceedings be heard by the same Judge.

Orders

  • ['That the claim against the third and fourth defendants be separated from the proceedings 2011/00394733 and separately determined.' 'That the claim against the third and fourth defendants be heard after the claim against the first and second defendants.' 'That the two claims be case managed together.' 'The costs of...