The Court refused the plaintiff's application to have questions of liability determined separately from and prior to questions of quantum in a case involving copyright infringement, misleading or deceptive conduct, and passing off claims. Williams J held that despite the established practice in intellectual property cases of separating liability from quantum, the significant overlap of factual issues between the proposed hearings — particularly the need for at least one witness to give evidence twice and the intertwining of evidence relevant to establishing loss (required for the ACL claims) with evidence relevant to quantifying damages — meant the claimed efficiencies were illusory. The Court emphasised that the proposal would likely increase overall hearing time and costs, especially given the plaintiff's contemplation of interlocutory appeals before any second hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members.