Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 6) [2014] FCA 804

Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 6) [2014] FCA 804

Respondents do not have such identity of interest that would justify restricting their opportunity to cross-examine each other's witnesses or limit leading questions; Court orders a specific sequence of cross-examination to ensure fairness, with applicants' counsel cross-examining first, followed by other respondents, and reserves leave for further cross-examination by applicants without introducing new material.

Parties
First Applicant: Investa Properties Pty Ltd (ACN 084 407 241); Second Applicant: Investa Residential Group Pty Ltd (ACN 098 527 390); First Respondent: Ashley Colin Nankervis; Second Respondent: Adam Kimberly Barclay; Fourth Respondent: Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd (ACN 128 863 230)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Orders and Directions Regarding Evidence and Cross Examination
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made granting leave for evidence and directions for cross-examination; costs of interlocutory application to be costs in proceedings.
Legal Topics
Evidence in Chief, Cross Examination, Leading Questions, Litigants in Person, Identity of Interest Among Respondents, Sequence of Cross Examination
Practice and Procedure Evidence in Chief Cross Examination Leading Questions Litigants in Person Identity of Interest Among Respondents Sequence of Cross Examination

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investa Properties Pty Ltd (ACN 084 407 241)

First Applicant

Investa Residential Group Pty Ltd (ACN 098 527 390)

Second Applicant

Ashley Colin Nankervis

First Respondent

Adam Kimberly Barclay

Second Respondent

Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd (ACN 128 863 230)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Orders and Directions Regarding Evidence and Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How evidence-in-chief and evidence in reply should be given by litigants in person
  2. 2 Extent of permitted leading questions among respondents and witnesses
  3. 3 Sequence and manner of cross-examination where respondents have overlapping interests

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents do not have such identity of interest that would justify restricting their opportunity to cross-examine each other's witnesses or limit leading questions; Court orders a specific sequence of cross-examination to ensure fairness, with applicants' counsel cross-examining first, followed by other respondents, and reserves leave for further cross-examination by applicants without introducing new material.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made granting leave for evidence and directions for cross-examination; costs of interlocutory application to be costs in proceedings.

Orders

  • By 4.00 pm on 11 August 2014, Mr Nankervis and Mr Barclay each file a written outline of any additional oral evidence-in-chief they each propose to give.
  • Mr Nankervis and Mr Barclay may give oral evidence in reply, supplemented by a written statement (if any), no earlier than 48 hours after completion of cross-examination by other parties.