Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1663
The application to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination was rejected because the material relied on was not substantially inconsistent with the plaintiff's previous evidence and the cross-examination already conducted had been thorough and detailed. The interests of justice and the overriding purpose of civil litigation did not require further cross-examination in this case.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 November 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Application During Ongoing Proceedings
- Outcome
- First defendant's application to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination rejected.
- Legal Topics
- ['recall of Witness' 'cross Examination' 'procedural Fairness' 'personal Injury']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application During Ongoing Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be recalled for further cross-examination regarding his use of Panadeine Forte']
Ratio Decidendi
The application to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination was rejected because the material relied on was not substantially inconsistent with the plaintiff's previous evidence and the cross-examination already conducted had been thorough and detailed. The interests of justice and the overriding purpose of civil litigation did not require further cross-examination in this case.
Court Disposition
First defendant's application to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination rejected.
Orders
- ['Application to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination is rejected.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment