An appeal was sought from a judge’s order deciding a preliminary issue of law. The claimant sought damages under the Fatal Accidents Act case.
Held: Bingham LJ said: ‘Order 33, r. 3 gives the Court a wide discretion to order the separate trial of different issues in appropriate cases and a decision is not to be regarded as interlocutory simply because it will not be finally determinative of the action whichever way it goes. Instead, a broad commonsense test should be applied, asking whether (if not tried separately) the issue would have formed a substantive part of the final trial. Judged by that test this judgment was plainly final, even though it did not give the plaintiff a money judgment and would not, even if in the airline’s favour, have ended the action.’
Judges:
Bingham LJ
Citations:
[1988] 2 LLRep 120, [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 120
Citing:
Cited – White v Brunton CA 1984
A judgment given upon a trial of a preliminary issue was held to be a final judgment for the purpose of deciding whether leave to appeal was required on the ground that it could be treated as the first part of a final hearing. Sir John Donaldson MR . .
Cited by:
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.449038