http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2011/198.html
EVIDENCE – witnesses – unfavourable witnesses – advanced rulings on whether leave should be given to cross-examine witnesses.
EVIDENCE – witnesses – unfavourable witnesses – test for granting leave to cross-examine witnesses.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11, 38, 41, 55, 135, 137, 192, 192A
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/1351.html
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Expert evidence – Joint reports of experts – Whether reasons are required for agreement between experts – Procedural fairness
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 11(1), s 79, s 135, s 190, s 192
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/294.html
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by a party to examine a witness in the same interest in a joint trial by asking non-leading questions – Application granted in the interest of justice – Cross-Examination of a witness in the same interest considered and compared – Value of such cross-examination considered – Control of examination by the Court considered – Directions given as to procedure to be followed – Sections 11(1), 26, 27, 28 and 42 Evidence Act 2008 – Part 2.3, s.25, 47 and 49 Civil Procedure Act 2010.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2010/222.html
APPEAL – criminal – interlocutory appeal – power to take further evidence and make other judgment – appeal by way of rehearing – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3A) – EVIDENCE – criminal trial – objection to the tender of recorded interviews of child – whether contaminated by suggestion – unfair prejudice – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137 – EVIDENCE – interview of child – whether affected by later hypnosis sessions – no reliance on post-hypnosis evidence – difficulties for post-hypnosis cross-examination – whether assessed under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137 or general law – PROCEDURE – criminal – objection to prosecution evidence – pre-trial hearing – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 9, 11, 55, 56, 108C, 135, 137, 165, 192A
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/194.html
MEDICAL TRIBUNAL – disciplinary proceedings – whether s 37 of the Medical Practice Act 1992 in its pre-2008 form, permits the Tribunal to find that examples of unsatisfactory conduct cumulatively justify a finding of “professional misconduct” – whether a finding of impairment necessarily leads the Tribunal to the decision that a medical practitioner is not competent to practice medicine. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – whether the Tribunal denied an unrepresented medical practitioner procedural fairness by limiting cross-examination of witnesses and rejecting questions as irrelevant – whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by limiting the evidence that the medical practitioner could adduce where the medical practitioner failed to comply with directions – whether Tribunal gave medical practitioner adequate warning that his conduct during the hearing could be taken into account in making findings. NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – whether Court of Appeal should modify the non-publication order made by the Tribunal.
Evidence Act 1995, ss 11, 26
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – motion to separate causes of action the subject of earlier no case submissions from remaining causes of action – respondents had elected to call no evidence in relation to the causes of action subject to the no case submissions – applicants entitled to cross examine respondent on all issues relevant to proceedings, including the causes of action the subject of no case submissions
BANKRUPTCY – application pursuant to s 121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – quantum of Bankrupt’s beneficial interest in matrimonial home registered in joint names – Bankrupt’s wife contributed nearly two-thirds of purchase price – presumption of resulting trust rebutted – common intention to acquire property as joint beneficial owners -Trustees entitled to 50 per cent of net proceeds of sale
BANKRUPTCY – whether Bankrupt was beneficially entitled to share held in his name – company acquired by the Bankrupt’s wife to act as trustee of her family trust – wife paid for share and acquisition costs – presumption of resulting trust applies – Trustees’ claim to share dismissed
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11, 27, 26(a), 135(a), (b), 144
EVIDENCE – Affidavit – Applicability of Evidence Act – Evidence about advice from solicitor given by annexing solicitor’s file note and commenting on it – Whether admissible.
Evidence Act 1995 ss.9, 11, 32, 34, 52
EVIDENCE – admissibility – correspondence on settlement negotiations – prima facie inadmissible – whether admissible because of need to “control the conduct of a proceeding” or under exception for “deliberate abuse of power”
Evidence Act 1995, ss.11,131
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Standing to sue not made out
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Review of Commissioner’s decision to refuse distribution of newsletter for prisoners
Extent of power under s 232 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation
Relevant considerations
Irrelevant considerations
COMMON LAW
Right to freedom of communication
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Implied freedom of communication concerning government or political matters
EVIDENCE
Admissibility of business records
Paragraph 23 of SCCL 3 Practice Note
Approach to s 11 of the Evidence Act
PRACTICE – Cross-examination by two Counsel – Principles applicable to inform discretion – Materiality of mode in which Commercial List is administered.
Evidence Act (1995) (NSW) ss 11(1), 26
Uniform Evidence Act
DECISION:
Leave granted to the defendants to further cross-examine Mr Hogarth by either Mr Officer QC or Mr Powell on areas and materials previously not covered by the cross-examination of Mr Shand, but permitting further cross-examination on credit generally.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT NARCOTIC
ALLEGED ENTRAPMENT
COUNSELLING BY POLICE AGENT TO COMMIT OFFENCE IN A CHAIN LEADING TO THE APPELLANT
EVIDENCE
CROSS EXAMINATION CONCERNING TREATMENT OF CO-OFFENDER
SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR JURY SECURITY
PLEA OF GUILTY BY CO-OFFENDER IN PRESENCE OF JURY
SENTENCE
DISCOUNT FOR POSSIBLE ENTRAPMENT RECEIVED BY CO-OFFENDER
DISPARITY BETWEEN SENTENCES REQUIRING ADJUSTMENT
Criminal Law – Abuse of process – Stay of proceedings – Action for wrongful dismissal against university – Information for criminal defamation by plaintiff against officer of university – Predominant purpose of informant to secure reinstatement or favourable settlement of action – Whether abuse of process.
Criminal Law (N.S.W.) – Trial – Delay – Whether common law right to speedy trial – Abuse of process – Stay of proceedings – 25 Edw I c 29 (Magna Carta) – Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (N.S.W.), s. 6.
Companies – Winding up – Public examination of director – Privilege against self-incrimination – Abrogation by statute – Power to give directions as to matters to be inquired into – Whether court may excuse from duty to answer questions on ground that answer may incriminate – Inherent power of court to control proceedings – Ability to reject question on ground that answer may incriminate – Companies (New South Wales) Code, s. 541.
Criminal Law – Ex officio information – Power of Attorney-General to present – Whether exercise reviewable by court – Power of court to ensure fair trial – Power to stay or postpone proceedings instituted by ex officio information – Australian Courts Act 1828 (9 Geo. IV c. 83), s. 5 – Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.), Pt IV, Div. 1.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – right to cross-examine – parties “in the same interest” – sequence of cross-examinations.
EVIDENCE – right to cross-examine – parties “in the same interest” – sequence of cross-examinations.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11, 26, 42
[2007] FCA 569
EVIDENCE – application by a witness under cross-examination to be excused from giving further evidence in the case
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11(1) and 41
EVIDENCE – Privilege – Without prejudice communications attempting to negotiate a settlement of a dispute – Where such communications are alleged to evidence abuse of process – Whether admissible
PROCEDURE – Abuse of process – Proceedings against employees of deregistered company – Alleged purpose of obtaining money from holding company – Reasonable grounds for bringing proceedings against employees and against holding company – Whether proceedings against employees an abuse of process.
Evidence Act 1995 , ss.11, 125, 139.