Slick v Westpac Banking Corporation (ACN 007 457 141) (No 1) [2006] FCA 1711

Slick v Westpac Banking Corporation (ACN 007 457 141) (No 1) [2006] FCA 1711

Leave to recall Mr Seward was refused because the interests of justice did not justify further cross-examination. The proposed evidence, particularly insofar as it went to credit, was not shown to have substantial probative value or a sufficient evidentiary basis, and recalling Mr Seward months after he had completed extensive cross-examination would cause substantial prejudice, with at least a possible loss of opportunity to adduce other explanatory evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Notice of Motion to Recall Witness for Further Cross Examination / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['recall of Witness for Further Cross Examination' 'discretion to Reopen Cross Examination' 'probative Value' 'prejudice' 'failure to Complain' 'browne V Dunn']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['recall of Witness for Further Cross Examination' 'discretion to Reopen Cross Examination' 'probative Value' 'prejudice' 'failure to Complain' 'browne V Dunn']

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; Notice of Motion to Recall Witness for Further Cross Examination / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Leo Seward should be recalled for further cross-examination on his failure to complain to Quadrant about alleged misleading conduct before proceedings commenced.' 'Whether Mr Leo Seward should be recalled for further cross-examination on his involvement in the preparation of forecasts.' 'Whether the proposed further cross-examination had sufficient probative value to justify recall.' 'Whether recalling Mr Leo Seward would cause real prejudice by reason of delay and possible loss of opportunity to adduce further evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to recall Mr Seward was refused because the interests of justice did not justify further cross-examination. The proposed evidence, particularly insofar as it went to credit, was not shown to have substantial probative value or a sufficient evidentiary basis, and recalling Mr Seward months after he had completed extensive cross-examination would cause substantial prejudice, with at least a possible loss of opportunity to adduce other explanatory evidence.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents' notice of motion seeking to recall Mr Leo Seward for further cross examination filed 27 November 2006 be dismissed." "The Respondents pay the Applicants' costs of the motion."]