MOYLAN & ORS v THE NUTRASWEET COMPANY & ORS [2000] NSWCA 337

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : MOYLAN & ORS v THE NUTRASWEET COMPANY & ORS [2000] NSWCA 337 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40175/99; 40176/99; 40177/99; 40178/99; 40179/99; 40180/99; 40181/99; 40182/99; 40183/99; 40174/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 29 August 2000, 30 August 2000, 31 August 2000, 1 September 2000, 4 September 2000, 5 September 2000, 6 September 2000, 7 September, 8 September 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 November 2000

PARTIES : Sonya Lee Moylan, Margaret Ann Lane, Margaret Orders, Brenda Southren, Sharon Gai Robertson, Fiona Mary Denzin, Karen Cynthia (Tabbah) Ottaway, Deborah Lea Gentle and Wendy Janene Lee - Appellants The Nutrasweet Company, Monsanto Australia Limited, SCI Corp and G D Searle & Co - Respondents JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Beazley JA at 119; Giles JA at 120

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT 109027/90; 11890/89; 12141/89; 12142/89; 13864/89; 13983/89; 11354/90; 123255/90; 13528/93 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Bruce J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellants - P Cashman/R Gilsenan Respondents - B W Walker SC/CB Loveday/SS Clark SOLICITORS : Appellants - Maurice Blackburn Cashman Respondents - Clayton Utz CATCHWORDS : COURTS AND JUDGES - Judgments - Duty to give reasons - Adequacy of reasons - Damages claim for personal injury - Where dispute involves an intellectual exchange between expert witnesses - Where judgment largely consisted of parties' submissions - Where delay in giving judgment. - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - Extension of limitation period - Exercise of discretion under Limitation Act 1969, s60G - Onus - Requirement of whether "just and reasonable" to grant extension. - PROCEDURE - Appeal and new trial - Whether Court of Appeal should give directions as to form of new trial. - PROCEDURE - Costs - Indemnity costs - Where defendants conceded to new trial during appeal - Costs of appeal grounds not argued. - D Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 Limitation Act 1969 LEGISLATION CITED : Ritchie's Supreme Court Procedure Supreme Court Act 1970 Trade Practices Act 1974 Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Bendix-Mintex Pty Limited v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR 307 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage and Trading Pty Limited (1970) 124 CLR 192 Eckersley v Binnie (1988) 18 Con LR 1 Elliot v Rokeby [1881] 7 AC 44 Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Limited (2000) 1 WLR 377 CASES CITED: Goose v Wilson Sandford & Co (unreported) 13 February 1998 Harris v Commercial Minerals Limited (1996) 186 CLR 1 Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Limited v International Pools Australia Limited (1995) 36 NSWLR 242 Jamal v Secretary, Department of Health (1988) 14 NSWLR 252 John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson (2000) 74 ALJR 1109 Lloyd-Jones v Clark-Lloyd [1919] 1 Ch 424 R v Maxwell (unreported) Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 December 1998 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Watt or Thomas v Thomas [1947] AC 484 DECISION : (a) The defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the liability appeal on grounds 2 and 5 of the synopsis of grounds of appeal but to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if so qualified; (b) The costs of the hearing of the liability proceedings before Bruce J will be in the discretion of the Judge re-hearing the proceedings or in the discretion of a Judge of the Common Law Division; (c) The plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the limitation appeals but to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act if so qualified; (d) The costs of the hearing of the limitation applications before Bruce J will be in the discretion of the Judge re-hearing those applications or in the discretion of a Judge of the Common Law Division.