The Court refused leave to file a cross-claim approximately one month before a listed two-week trial, holding that the proposed cross-claim would open a significant new field of forensic dispute (particularly as to causation and quantum involving close to 500 individual transactions) that could not be fairly prepared for and tried within the remaining time. The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the core issues of misleading conduct would be determined at the existing trial, and that MRG could likely rely on favourable findings via issue estoppel in any subsequent separate proceeding, meaning duplication and inefficiency from requiring a new proceeding would not be excessive. Concerns about the cross-respondent's solvency, reflective loss, and alleged illegality were not treated as weighing against leave, as the opposing party failed to articulate how those matters would give rise to a defence to the proposed cross-claim.
The full text is available to signed-in members.