Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Idameneo (No 789) Limited v Christopher Brownlow Idameneo (No 789) Limited v Carol Davenport [2014] NSWSC 1742 Decision date: 01 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Bergin CJ in Eq Decision: Application to delay delivery of judgment granted Catchwords: [PRACTICE & PROCEDURE] - where lengthy and complex trial - where judgment reserved - where after some months parties make application for delivery of judgment to be delayed - where application for leave to re-open granted - further evidence - after judgment further reserved and listed for delivery, further request for delay so parties can pursue settlement discussions. [LEGAL PROFESSION] - expectation of practitioners - need for promptitude - consideration of other litigants awaiting judgments - delay occasioned to others while preparation of ultimately unnecessary judgment Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: In proceedings 2010/236856 Idameneo (No 789) Ltd (1st Plaintiff) Specialist Diagnostic Services Pty Ltd (2nd Plaintiff) Christopher Brownlow (2nd Defendant) Nicholas Champness (3rd Defendant) Narelle McKenzie (4th Defendant) Pathology South Coast Pty Ltd (5th Defendant) Pathology NSW Pty Limited (6th Defendant) Pathology Victoria Pty Limited (7th Defendant) Pathology Diagnostics Pty Limited (8th Defendant) Pathology Specialists Pty Limited (9th Defendant) Pathology Vision Pty Limited (10th Defendant) Pathology First Pty Limited (11th Defendant) Australian Diagnostics Group Pty Limited (12th Defendant) Cherie Winterburn (13th Defendant) Christine Louise Davey (14th Defendant) Matthew Dale Burt (15th Defendant) Enia Lucia Kakaflikas (16th Defendant) Wade Foster (17th Defendant) Kristine Gay Durling (18th Defendant) Stella Pendle (19th Defendant) Marie Lo (20th Defendant) Anoop Singh (21st Defendant) In proceedings 2011/209740 Idameneo (No 789) Ltd (1st Plaintiff) Specialist Diagnostic Services Pty Ltd (2nd Plaintiff) Carol Davenport (1st Defendant) Pathology NSW Pty Ltd (2nd Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Cheshire (Plaintiffs) JR Clarke SC/Y Shariff (Defendants) Solicitors: Maddocks Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Clayton Utz (Defendants) File Number(s): 2010/236856; 2011/209740 Publication restriction: Nil EX TEMPORE Judgment 1This is an oral application brought by the defendants, supported by the plaintiffs, for the vacation of tomorrow's listing for judgment to be delivered in these matters. 2The trial of the matters occurred over 20 days commencing on 21 May 2014 and concluding on 26 June 2014. There are 21 defendants in one set of proceedings against whom (by reason of rolled up claims) there are literally hundreds of causes of action. At the time that judgment was reserved on 26 June 2014, there was an aspect of one set of the causes of action (the alleged copying of, taking and using the plaintiffs' confidential information in their operational Manuals of their pathology businesses) in respect of which the parties were hoping to reach an agreed position on some issues. 3On 1 September 2014 the parties notified my Associate that they "hope[d] to be in a position" to inform the Court "within the next 2-4 weeks" of the outcome of their discussions about this aspect of the case regarding the Manuals. On 17 September 2014 when trial counsel happened to be in Court in another matter I raised with them this rather unsatisfactory communication. I informed counsel that if nothing further was heard on this aspect of the matter from the parties by 30 September 2014, I intended to proceed to finalise and deliver judgment. 4On 30 September 2014 the defendants' solicitors wrote to my Associate (with the consent of the plaintiffs' solicitors) advising that there were "a couple of matters" that the parties "may respectfully ask" the Court to deal with prior to the delivery of judgment. The parties also advised that over the previous month they had "made real progress" in settlement discussions in respect of all issues. They requested that they be given until 21 October 2014 to pursue those discussions and to bring the matter back on that day, prior to delivery of judgment. 5On 30 September 2014 the parties were advised that the matters were listed for directions on 21 October 2014. 6On 20 October 2014 the defendants' solicitors wrote again to my Associate (with the consent of the plaintiff's solicitors) advising that the parties were "hopeful" that they "will be able to resolve the issues in dispute in these proceedings in the coming weeks". They advised that they were also attempting to settle proceedings in other jurisdictions as part of the settlement of these proceedings. They advised further that if settlement were not to be reached, "further evidence" was needed prior to the delivery of judgment. They requested that the matters "be adjourned for 6 weeks". 7On 20 October 2014, the parties were advised that the matters would remain listed on 21 October 2014. 8On 21 October 2014, I granted leave to the defendants to reopen their cases and to tender further evidence. I once again reserved my judgments in the matters to deal with the fresh evidence. On that day the parties were advised that the matters were listed for judgment on 2 December 2014. 9On 24 November 2014 the plaintiffs' solicitors (with the consent of the defendants' solicitors) wrote to my Associate advising that the plaintiffs had reviewed the fresh evidence tendered by the defendants on 21 October 2014 and no longer pressed certain limited aspects of their claims in respect of the Manuals. These matters then needed to be taken into account for delivery of the judgment on 2 December 2014. 10On 28 November 2014 the defendants' solicitors wrote to my Associate (with the consent of the plaintiffs' solicitors) requesting that the matters be relisted on 1 December 2014 because they wished to make an application for the matters to be stood over to 16 December 2014. They advised that they "anticipate[d] having sufficient material" before the Court to "show that a binding settlement agreement will be reached between the parties within 14 days". 11Today, the defendants have read a confidential affidavit of their solicitor, Mr Buchanan, seeking to explain the request that judgment in the matters not to be delivered tomorrow. 12The overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 that governs these proceedings is for the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings:(s 56 (1)). These concepts are of course relative. However at their core is the delivery of judgments with as much promptitude as possible in all the circumstances. As a general rule the more complex the case the greater the time that will be required to prepare the judgment. It is not necessary to address the exceptions to this general rule but they are varied. The reality is that while attention is being given to one reserved judgment, others await attention. When the process is subjected to events such as those referred to above, further delay will be occasioned not only in the judgment under attention (to consider and determine the matter in the light of the fresh evidence) but also others awaiting attention. 13It must be understood that when a lengthy trial like this occurs and there is a need for the delivery of a judgment it is necessary for practitioners and parties to give consideration to other litigants: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175. By that, I mean other litigants waiting for their judgments whilst a judgment in a case such as this is prepared. These observations are not made by way of criticism of the attempts to settle the proceedings. Rather it is by way of indication to the profession that it is expected that the parties will try and settle their differences promptly, so that other litigants are not inconvenienced by the delay in the delivery of their judgments while the preparation of other ultimately unnecessary judgments takes precedence. 14I am willing to once again delay the delivery of my judgment in these matters. The Court supports the parties in trying to reach a commercial settlement of their differences and to achieve certainty and finality in respect of the many disputes both in this State and elsewhere. 15I vacate the listing for the delivery of judgment in these matters on 2 December 2014. 16I list the matter part-heard on 17 December 2014 at 9.45am. *********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 December 2014