The three-part analysis described above is a subjunctive test. Courts generally favour a bifurcation only if an interim objection meets all three criteria. It seems, for example, unwise to embody a non-serious and substantial objection (Prong 1), even if the objection would be if successful and if it were different from the merits (Prongs 2 and 3). Similarly, it seems unwise to reproduce an objection that would not yield ”all or a substantial part” of the claims (Prong 2), even if the objection is serious and significant and goes beyond the merits (Prongs 1 and 3). For these reasons, courts generally reject bifurcation when an objection does not even fail one of the three test points. However, bifurcation can also lead to confusion and allow the process to go even further. If you are in a situation where one spouse was the breadwinner of the house and the other spouse was the servant, the support of the house is suddenly not prompted to move forward. He or she should be in a stronger financial position as long as the division of ownership remains, at least temporarily, in legal pending. While the issue of compensation for damages is not common, it is also not unheard of – courts sometimes separately decide injury issues and, in the analysis of the decision to do so, considerations of effectiveness appear to be predominant, such as in the misappropriation of jurisdiction and merit.31 For example, in The Suez/.

Argentina found that the most effective approach would be to separate its analysis of the prejudice from its decision on the respondent`s liability. The Suez court ruled that doubling the compensation phase is more likely to lead to efficiency gains in certain situations. if. B for example, an applicant intends to make particularly complex, new or factual arguments, and may be justified in ramification of damages for at least two reasons. First, if the claims failed in the judicial phase or in the reasonable phase, both parties would avoid the time and cost of evolving their complex theories about damage. Second, a separate loss phase would allow the parties to have sufficient opportunities to focus on their theories and counter-arguments and develop them fully. Another scenario that could justify a misappropriation of damages would be a case with legal objections that have the potential to eliminate certain claims, particularly if the damage is expected to differ from the rights or overlap complexly between claims. In this case, if the judicial result can significantly reduce the scope or complexity of the injury analysis, it may be useful to extend and address the damages only when it is clear what claims remain.