Description
A master was fully justified in not ordering a split trial where there was an overlap on the issues of liability and quantum
It was held that the master had in mind the nature of the accident and the need for one judge to look at the whole matter when determining there should not be a split trial in a personal injury action. He understood that there was an overlap in the case and that the expert evidence relating to the injuries would be relevant to liability and quantum. It was not fair on the master to say that there had been a lack of reasons as his reasons were plain to the parties and were cogent. The master exercised his discretion correctly and his decision was within the ambit of his case management discretion and were not manifestly wrong.
