Morse v Riley [2014] NSWSC 212

Morse v Riley [2014] NSWSC 212

The first plaintiff was not excused from cross-examination because her statement left open the possibility that her evidence would be relevant to whether the claim fell within the proviso in s 6(4), including whether conduct more serious than admitted negligence could entitle LawCover to disclaim liability; her physical difficulties could be addressed by arranging cross-examination by telephone.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing of Motion for an Order That the First Plaintiff Be Excused From Cross Examination
Outcome
First Plaintiff not to be excused from cross-examination at the hearing of the motion.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'joinder Motion' 'insurer Disclaimer of Liability' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (nsw) S 6(4)']
['procedure' 'insurance'] ['cross Examination' 'joinder Motion' 'insurer Disclaimer of Liability' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (nsw) S 6(4)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing of Motion for an Order That the First Plaintiff Be Excused From Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first plaintiff should be excused from cross-examination at the hearing of the motion notwithstanding her physical difficulties.' "Whether the first plaintiff's evidence may be relevant to whether the claim falls within the proviso in s 6(4) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first plaintiff was not excused from cross-examination because her statement left open the possibility that her evidence would be relevant to whether the claim fell within the proviso in s 6(4), including whether conduct more serious than admitted negligence could entitle LawCover to disclaim liability; her physical difficulties could be addressed by arranging cross-examination by telephone.

Court Disposition

First Plaintiff not to be excused from cross-examination at the hearing of the motion.

Orders

  • ['First Plaintiff not to be excused from cross-examination at the hearing of the motion.' 'The parties have liberty to approach.']