Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd v Doyle

Decision: See [10]

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for determination of separate questions – application for questions of liability to be determined separately and in advance of quantification of damages – whether there should be a departure from the ordinary position to hear and determine all issues concurrently – whether separate questions will facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings – where there would be a potential for overlapping evidence – no separate questions to be answered.

Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited: LSR3 v New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1570

Texts Cited: N.A.

Category: Consequential orders

Parties: Austpipe Plumbing Services Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
Craig Robert Doyle (first defendant)
MKR Services (NSW) Pty Ltd as trustee for the Doyle Family Trust (second defendant)
SPE Services Pty Ltd (third defendant)
Doyle SMSF Investing Pty Ltd (fourth defendant)
Lisa Michele Doyle (fifth defendant)
CLD Espresso Pty Ltd (sixth defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
R Perla (plaintiff)
E Felthouse (solicitor - defendants)
Solicitors:
Rose Litigation (plaintiff)
McCullough Robertson Lawyers (defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/200067

Publication restriction: N.A.

Judgment – Ex tempore (revised from the Transcript)

1. By notice of motion filed on 26 March 2025, the plaintiff relevantly seeks orders as follows:

2. pursuant to UCPR r 28.2, all questions of liability be determined separately and in advance of the quantification of damages; and

3. in the alternative, that if the Court determines that the plaintiff is entitled to an account of profits or equitable compensation (or any other damages as claimed), the quantification of any such entitlement is to be determined separately and after the determination of the declaratory and other relief as sought by the plaintiff in a statement of claim filed 8 July 2022.

4. The first and fourth to sixth defendants oppose the application.

5. There is no dispute about the relevant legal principles. Both parties accepted the summary of those principles by Faulkner J in LSR3 v New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1570 at [24]-[32]. In short, the Court has a discretion to make an order for the separate determination of questions. Ordinarily, the Court will hear and determine all issues at the same time and it is for the party who seeks a departure from the ordinary position to demonstrate why departure is desirable. The Court will approach the question in a commonsense way, having regard to the overriding purpose to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

6. In this case, I am not persuaded that the Court should depart from the ordinary position. That is for the following reasons.

7. First, it is too early to rule out the possibility that there will be overlap in the evidence adduced at the liability stage and at the quantum stage. The evidence of Mr Doyle, the first defendant, and his credit will certainly be relevant on liability. It is hard to rule out the possibility that his evidence will be relevant also to questions of quantum, which will include a claim for an account of profits as well as equitable compensation.

8. Secondly, while there has been delay in these proceedings, which is regrettable, I do not see that splitting liability and quantum will alleviate delay and, indeed, may contribute to further delay. That is because split hearings often involve a longer period to conclude proceedings, especially with the prospect of an intermediate appeal on questions of liability. Often, the splitting of liability and quantum can result in a false economy.

9. Thirdly, I do not accept that splitting liability and quantum is likely to facilitate a negotiated settlement. There is plainly a serious dispute about quantum and the parties would be better informed in the conduct of settlement discussions after evidence on quantum has been served.

10. It may be that it will be efficient for issues concerning an account of profits to be referred to a referee. However, it is too early to make that determination. This can be revisited once evidence on quantum has been prepared. It may also be the case that this is a suitable matter for the appointment of a single expert, who can examine questions of quantum and produce a single report. That is something that the parties should consider as a potentially efficient way to move forward on questions of quantum.

11. In my view, this is a case that is most likely to be resolved in a just, quick and cheap manner, whether that be by negotiated settlement or judgment, if it proceeds to trial in the usual way, that is to say, on all issues.

12. The orders of the Court are as follows:

13. The application is dismissed.

14. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the first and fourth to sixth defendants.

**********