The Court refused the plaintiffs' application for separate determination of eight questions of law in advance of a wrongful birth damages hearing, finding that the risk of appellate fragmentation, the absence of any undertaking not to appeal, the relatively short five-day hearing estimate, and the preference for determining legal questions in their proper factual context weighed against separation. The Court emphasised that the obligation under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act to narrow disputes extends to expert conclave arrangements, and that uncertainty about recoverability of a head of damage does not preclude agreement on quantum. The substantive questions — including whether parents can recover gratuitous care costs, housing modifications, NDIS/Medicare offsets, and general damages for diminished quality of life in wrongful birth claims — remain unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members.