CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 3) [2010] FCA 1433

CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 3) [2010] FCA 1433

The respondents' application to recall Mrs Rojo was refused because the respondents had made a tactical or strategic decision to avoid the topic of the diaries and photocopied extracts when leading her evidence-in-chief, the applicants had then legitimately shaped a confined cross-examination in response, and it would have been unfair and contrary to the interests of justice to permit the respondents to open that topic by further evidence-in-chief so late in the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application to Recall a Witness / During Trial, After the Witness' Evidence Had Concluded
Outcome
Respondents' application refused.
Legal Topics
['recall of Witness' 'further Evidence in Chief' 'interests of Justice' 'forensic or Tactical Decision' 'certificate Against Self Incrimination']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['recall of Witness' 'further Evidence in Chief' 'interests of Justice' 'forensic or Tactical Decision' 'certificate Against Self Incrimination']

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

Practice and Procedure Application to Recall a Witness / During Trial, After the Witness' Evidence Had Concluded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should be permitted to recall Glenys Marilyn Rojo after her evidence had concluded to adduce further evidence-in-chief about the diaries and photocopied diary extracts.' 'Whether the interests of justice favoured recall where the respondents had made a tactical or strategic decision not to lead evidence from Mrs Rojo on that topic when she was first called.' 'Whether allowing recall would unfairly prejudice the applicants because cross-examination had been conducted on the basis of the confined evidence-in-chief actually led.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' application to recall Mrs Rojo was refused because the respondents had made a tactical or strategic decision to avoid the topic of the diaries and photocopied extracts when leading her evidence-in-chief, the applicants had then legitimately shaped a confined cross-examination in response, and it would have been unfair and contrary to the interests of justice to permit the respondents to open that topic by further evidence-in-chief so late in the trial.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application refused.

Orders

  • ["The Court refuses the respondents' application to have Glenys Marilyn Rojo recalled for the purpose of seeking to adduce further evidence-in-chief from Mrs Rojo."]