Whether a construction of statute argument should be heard separately
Where the construction of statute would be determinative of evidence led at trial
Quick Take
1A separate determination of questions of statutory construction under UCPR r 28.2 will be refused where the construction cannot be resolved divorced from the underlying factual context, where there are significant overlapping factual issues between the separate questions and the substantive hearing, and where the efficiency gains are contingent on the moving party's construction being accepted — particularly where the opposing construction is not devoid of merit.
2Advance rulings on the admissibility of evidence under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) will be refused where the relevance and admissibility of the evidence may depend on the way the case unfolds at trial, including the construction the court is ultimately persuaded to adopt, and where the rulings would require preliminary determination of discretionary questions (such as the scope of declaratory relief) that may need to be revisited at trial.
3The self-represented status of a party, while not itself determinative, is a factor weighing against procedural orders that depart from the orthodox course of hearing a case in its totality, given the court's duty to afford self-represented litigants a fair hearing.
