Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Limited t/as Colin Biggers and Paisley v McKenzie [2017] NSWSC 1426

Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Limited t/as Colin Biggers and Paisley v McKenzie [2017] NSWSC 1426

Leave to cross-examine Mr Harkin was refused because each proposed topic was either irrelevant to the stay application or unnecessary: the trust account transaction was not relevant to the discretionary stay question; delay in the professional negligence proceedings was not to be relied on as disentitling delay; and the applicant could make submissions about possible stultification on the existing evidence without cross-examining Mr Harkin about the firm's present bankruptcy intentions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Enforcement of a Judgment; Interlocutory Application for Leave to Cross Examine / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Leave to cross-examine Mr Harkin refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Cross Examine in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'stay of Enforcement of Judgment' 'assessment and Registration of Legal Costs' 'professional Negligence Proceedings' 'potential Bankruptcy Proceedings']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'legal Costs'] ['leave to Cross Examine in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'stay of Enforcement of Judgment' 'assessment and Registration of Legal Costs' 'professional Negligence Proceedings' 'potential Bankruptcy Proceedings']

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

Application for Stay of Enforcement of a Judgment; Interlocutory Application for Leave to Cross Examine / Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine Mr Harkin about a trust account ledger transaction relating to $5,000 of $155,000 paid on account of costs.' 'Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine Mr Harkin about delay or party-identification issues in pending professional negligence proceedings.' "Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine Mr Harkin about the judgment debtor's means and the judgment creditor's present intention regarding bankruptcy proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to cross-examine Mr Harkin was refused because each proposed topic was either irrelevant to the stay application or unnecessary: the trust account transaction was not relevant to the discretionary stay question; delay in the professional negligence proceedings was not to be relied on as disentitling delay; and the applicant could make submissions about possible stultification on the existing evidence without cross-examining Mr Harkin about the firm's present bankruptcy intentions.

Court Disposition

Leave to cross-examine Mr Harkin refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to cross-examine Mr Harkin is refused.']