28 Mar 2024
The coroner directed that a single, consolidated inquest be held for the 39 deaths given the temporal and factual connection between the events, set disclosure and timetable obligations for the police (full report by early June 2024), and fixed procedural steps including a second pre-inquest review within two months of receipt of the full report and not later than September 2024.
28 Mar 2024
The coroner exercised jurisdiction to consolidate the 39 related deaths into a single inquest, directed police to produce a full investigation report by early June 2024, ordered a second pre-inquest review within two months of receiving that report (and no later than September 2024), and required disclosure of witness lists and statements 21 days before the second review; the inquest will focus on cause and circumstances and may make prevention recommendations but will not determine civil or criminal liability.
28 Mar 2024
The coroner ordered a consolidated inquest for the 39 deaths, directed the police to deliver the full investigation report by early June 2024, and fixed a second pre-inquest review to occur within two months of receipt of that report (and in any event no later than September 2024), with disclosure to interested persons 21 days before the review; families may instruct counsel or apply for legal aid; the inquest is to be targeted for hearing within 2024.
28 Mar 2024
The coroner determined that the 39 deaths should be heard in a consolidated inquest, directed the police to provide the full investigation report by early June 2024, set a second pre-inquest review within two months of receipt (and no later than September 2024), and set procedural disclosure deadlines including provision of witness lists and statements 21 days prior to the second review.
17 May 2022
The court continued the interlocutory injunction against all three defendants until trial or further order; ordered that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the injunction application as between those parties; and ordered that costs between the plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant be in the cause because the 1st Defendant offered an early undertaking, the plaintiffs sought relief beyond the injunction, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a sufficiently strong case on the merits against the 1st Defendant.
14 May 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success or any overriding interest of justice; the case management decisions were within the judge’s discretion given a bilingual trial judge, lack of required English translations, and the practical impossibility of finishing the trial within the allotted time if interpretation were required; the leave to file a supplementary witness statement was correctly limited to responding to the 2nd Supp WS and any application to add a new witness must be made to the trial judge with supporting witness statement.