Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.2) [2003] NSWSC 772

Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.2) [2003] NSWSC 772

The proposed further evidence was admissible in re-examination because Mr Roach's cross-examination was capable of creating an unfavourable and potentially incomplete inference about his intentions to sell assets; however, because the evidence also supported the plaintiffs' substantive case and could have been led in chief, it would be admitted only subject to the defendants' right to cross-examine on it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Common Law Division, Professional Negligence List / Judgment No.2 – on Admissibility of Evidence in Re Examination
Outcome
Evidence allowed subject to cross-examination.
Legal Topics
['re Examination' 'cross Examination' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'further Evidence in Chief']
['evidence' 'professional Negligence'] ['re Examination' 'cross Examination' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'further Evidence in Chief']

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

Common Law Division, Professional Negligence List / Judgment No.2 – on Admissibility of Evidence in Re Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs may adduce further evidence in re-examination of Mr Roach about matters arising out of his cross-examination.' 'Whether the defendants should have a right to cross-examine on further evidence adduced in re-examination where that evidence also has the character of further evidence in chief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed further evidence was admissible in re-examination because Mr Roach's cross-examination was capable of creating an unfavourable and potentially incomplete inference about his intentions to sell assets; however, because the evidence also supported the plaintiffs' substantive case and could have been led in chief, it would be admitted only subject to the defendants' right to cross-examine on it.

Court Disposition

Evidence allowed subject to cross-examination.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs may adduce further evidence in re-examination of Mr Roach along the lines identified by the Court.' 'The defendants have a right to cross-examine on such further evidence.' 'Subject to any contrary argument, any further evidence in re-examination should, if the defendants wish it, be by witness...