Akmoline Pty Ltd v H.R.C. Servit Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 551

Akmoline Pty Ltd v H.R.C. Servit Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 551

The filing of Mr Burrows's supplementary affidavit of discovery does not give the applicant the right to demand his cross-examination upon it, as established by authority.

Parties
Applicant: AKMOLINE PTY. LIMITED; First Respondent: H.R.C. SERVIT PTY. LIMITED; Second Respondent: H.R.C. HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED; Third Respondent: PETER ANTHONY BARGE; Fourth Respondent: JOHN KENNY; Fifth Respondent: DENNIS JEFFS; Sixth Respondent: H.R.C. SERVIT (N.S.W.) PTY. LIMITED; Seventh Respondent: JOHN GRAY
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Motion / Motion for Further and Better Discovery; Ruling on Cross Examination of Affiant
Outcome
Applicant is not entitled to cross-examine Mr Burrows on his affidavit of discovery; motion is to be re-listed for further argument and costs.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Affidavit of Discovery, Cross Examination on Affidavit, Supplementary Affidavit
Civil Procedure Discovery Affidavit of Discovery Cross Examination on Affidavit Supplementary Affidavit

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKMOLINE PTY. LIMITED

Applicant

H.R.C. SERVIT PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

H.R.C. HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

PETER ANTHONY BARGE

Third Respondent

JOHN KENNY

Fourth Respondent

DENNIS JEFFS

Fifth Respondent

H.R.C. SERVIT (N.S.W.) PTY. LIMITED

Sixth Respondent

JOHN GRAY

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Motion for Further and Better Discovery; Ruling on Cross Examination of Affiant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant is entitled to cross-examine Mr Burrows on his supplementary affidavit of discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The filing of Mr Burrows's supplementary affidavit of discovery does not give the applicant the right to demand his cross-examination upon it, as established by authority.

Court Disposition

Applicant is not entitled to cross-examine Mr Burrows on his affidavit of discovery; motion is to be re-listed for further argument and costs.