Leave to appeal from interlocutory case management orders was refused; the extension of time to seek leave from the 3 March Orders was granted but the substantive application for leave to appeal from both the 3 March and 26 March Orders was dismissed, with costs to the respondent on a standard basis. The decision confirms that where a primary judge limits the scope of an initial trial in a Part IVA class action to preserve procedural fairness to the respondent — particularly where the applicants failed to provide adequate particulars of claims beyond the lead applicants and gave assurances about the scope of evidence that were later departed from — an appellate court will not intervene absent demonstrated House v The King error. General notice of an intention to call lay evidence beyond lead applicants is insufficient to put a respondent on notice of the case to meet; particularised notice linked to the pleading is required. The decision also illustrates that the prohibition on appeals from adjournment decisions under s 24(1AA)(b) of the FCA Act renders incompetent any ground of appeal that in substance challenges a refusal to vacate hearing dates.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.