1 Feb 2022
The Court applied High Court Rules r 14.8, found no very good reason to depart from dealing with interlocutory costs discretely, and awarded the defendants costs of $5,129 (inclusive of disbursements) for the split trial application disposed of on 20 December 2021.
12 Jul 2019
The Court granted a split trial: liability and the regulatory outcome (whether approvals would have been granted or a loss of chance) will be tried first; quantification of loss and business consequences reserved for a subsequent hearing because plaintiffs provided late, complex particulars on quantum causing unfair prejudice and inadequate time for defendant to prepare; adjournment denied.
8 Mar 2019
The defendants failed to rebut the presumption in favour of a single trial because the estimated practical time saving was minimal, proceedings are at an early stage with discovery incomplete and pleadings unparticularised, and the risks and delay inherent in a split hearing outweighed the modest benefits; accordingly the application for a split trial was dismissed with leave to reapply.
8 Aug 2016
The court declined (effectively by withdrawal) the plaintiffs' split trial application and set an amended timetable; ordered ANZ to produce all versions of the Interest Rate SWAPs brochure/presentation used or edited by Mr Esquilant in 2007-2008; ordered ANZ to produce all documents relating to general client assessment and suitability for SWAPs between 2005 and 2013; ordered ANZ to provide an affidavit by Ms Hedley or another appropriate employee outlining steps taken to amend disclosures and distribute advisers' statements; refused a general release of the implied undertaking but endorsed a…
20 Apr 2016
Application for a split trial was dismissed. The defendants bore the onus and although liability and quantum are separable, three factors tipped the discretion against a split trial: (1) the plaintiffs' claim for additional damages under s121(2) reduced the prospects of settlement on quantum, (2) the pleaded defence of innocent infringement under s121(1) meant quantum could not be reasonably deferred without undermining resolution, and (3) the multiplicity of third and fourth/fifth party downstream claims made separate hearings inefficient. The Court therefore refused the defendants' applicat…
26 Feb 2013
The costs order was intended to cover all four hearing days; the plaintiff did not succeed on the key issue of securing a liability/loss split or inclusion of additional non‑common issues; there was no basis to limit or discount the awarded costs or to disallow Credit Suisse disbursements; the application to recall or vary the costs order is dismissed.
18 Jul 2012
Leave to file the amended statement of defence dated 6 July was granted because delay was minimal and amendment justified; however the September fixture was not adjourned because the existing Papple defence could and should be tried on the assigned date to afford Hanover timely resolution of cover, the new allegations are discrete and capable of separate trial, and the integrity of the set-down fixture must be preserved.
26 Oct 2011
The judge exercised case management discretion under the High Court Rules and ordered a split trial: the proprietary issues (Securities Act breach and tracing, and first plaintiffs' proprietary/damages claim) will be tried first to allow prompt resolution and potential distribution of the disputed fund; wilful blindness/dishonest assistance claims against professional firms (PWC, Buddle Findlay and possibly the Nelson firm) will be separately case-managed because joinder of multiple firms would cause substantial delay and disproportionate costs relative to the $8.8m fund; Buddle Findlay was j…
23 Sept 2010
The application for a split trial was declined because the balance of convenience weighed against the plaintiffs: there was significant overlap of evidence and witnesses causing duplication and inefficient use of Court time, real prejudice to defendants (travel and inadequate preparation), and a real risk of further appeals and multiple hearings; accordingly the fixture was vacated, costs were awarded to defendants on a 2B basis, and timetabling directions were given for the security for costs application.
27 Mar 2009
The application for split trials and deferred discovery was refused because the material showed no clear and practicable demarcation between liability and quantum: significant financial evidence is relevant to liability, there is likely substantial overlap of witnesses and documents, and there is a real risk of appeals and delay; no plainly discernible advantages justified splitting the trial in this case.