Searle, B.A. v. Keayes, P. & Ors [1994] FCA 970

Searle, B.A. v. Keayes, P. & Ors [1994] FCA 970

The witnesses were not recalled because the first respondent had already had a full, unrestricted and fair opportunity to cross-examine the applicant and Mr Paterson, including indulgences to recall the applicant, and no special circumstances justified further cross-examination given the likely delay, expense, disruption, strain on the witnesses, and inability to compensate the applicant in costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the First Respondent to Recall Witnesses for Further Cross Examination
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'recall of Witnesses' 'cross Examination by More Than One Counsel' 'litigant in Person Subsequently Briefing Counsel' 'costs']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['cross Examination' 'recall of Witnesses' 'cross Examination by More Than One Counsel' 'litigant in Person Subsequently Briefing Counsel' 'costs']

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

Civil Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the First Respondent to Recall Witnesses for Further Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant and Mr Paterson should be recalled for further cross-examination by newly briefed counsel for the first respondent after the first respondent had cross-examined them in person.' 'Whether special circumstances justified departure from the practice that a witness should not be cross-examined by more than one representative of a party.']

Ratio Decidendi

The witnesses were not recalled because the first respondent had already had a full, unrestricted and fair opportunity to cross-examine the applicant and Mr Paterson, including indulgences to recall the applicant, and no special circumstances justified further cross-examination given the likely delay, expense, disruption, strain on the witnesses, and inability to compensate the applicant in costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application to recall the applicant and Mr Paterson for further cross-examination is dismissed with costs.']