The Court dismissed an application for a separate and urgent trial of liability under a deed of indemnity, holding that the applicants failed to demonstrate the liability and quantum issues were cleanly demarcated, that the liability trial would be as confined as contended, or that a separate trial would resolve or substantially narrow the litigious controversy. The existence of a foreshadowed cross-claim raising an 'inequity claim' and the likelihood that oral evidence and credit findings would be required on several defences weighed against departure from the general rule of a single trial. The Court also found no basis for urgency, as no material prejudice from ordinary listing was established.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.