Kingham v Cole [2002] FCA 45

Kingham v Cole [2002] FCA 45

Paragraph 12 of Practice Note No 2 is not beyond the Commissioner’s power as it is reasonably connected to the Commission’s purpose, is not coercive, and does not in itself infringe the requirements of natural justice. The requirement to provide a statement of evidence before cross-examination assists in the orderly and efficient conduct of the Commission, and is not unfair or invalid.

Parties
Applicants: Martin Leonard Kingham & Ors (according to the schedule attached); First Respondent: Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Law Relief and Declaration / Judgment After Contested Application
Outcome
Application dismissed. Applicants to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Cross Examination, Royal Commissions Act 1902 (cth), Practice Notes, Discretion of Commissioner
Administrative Law Royal Commissions Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Cross Examination Royal Commissions Act 1902 (cth) Practice Notes Discretion of Commissioner

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Leonard Kingham & Ors (according to the schedule attached)

Applicants

Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Administrative Law Relief and Declaration / Judgment After Contested Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner had power to require that persons provide a signed statement of evidence before being permitted to cross-examine a witness
  2. 2 Whether the Practice Note provisions breach the rules of natural justice in the context of a Royal Commission

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 12 of Practice Note No 2 is not beyond the Commissioner’s power as it is reasonably connected to the Commission’s purpose, is not coercive, and does not in itself infringe the requirements of natural justice. The requirement to provide a statement of evidence before cross-examination assists in the orderly and efficient conduct of the Commission, and is not unfair or invalid.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Applicants to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • The second respondent's objection to competency is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The application is dismissed.