LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (Cross-examination) [2024] FCA 265

LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (Cross-examination) [2024] FCA 265

Although the interests of the first to third respondents and MDR were closely aligned, distinct matters applied to MDR so their interests were not identical. The proposed topics were important to MDR's defence, had not been covered in the context of knowing participation, and a further half day of cross-examination after three and a half days of appropriate cross-examination would not be oppressive or unwarranted. A fair trial required permitting MDR's senior counsel to cross-examine, but only on factual matters not already covered and on topics where MDR contended it had a different interest from the first to third respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Ruling Concerning Cross Examination / Ruling on Applicants' Objection to Cross Examination of the Second Applicant by Senior Counsel for the Fourth Respondent
Outcome
Applicants' objection rejected in part; the fourth respondent was permitted to cross-examine the second applicant on a limited basis.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination of Witnesses' 'court Control Over Questioning of Witnesses' 'fair Trial' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) Ss 26, 27, 28, 190(4) and 192' 'multiple Counsel Cross Examination' 'divergent Interests Between Respondents']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['cross Examination of Witnesses' 'court Control Over Questioning of Witnesses' 'fair Trial' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) Ss 26, 27, 28, 190(4) and 192' 'multiple Counsel Cross Examination' 'divergent Interests Between Respondents']

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 Ruling Concerning Cross Examination / Ruling on Applicants' Objection to Cross Examination of the Second Applicant by Senior Counsel for the Fourth Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether senior counsel for the fourth respondent should be permitted to cross-examine the second applicant after cross-examination by senior counsel for the first to third respondents.' 'Whether the fourth respondent had the same interest as the first to third respondents or a divergent interest sufficient to justify separate cross-examination.' 'Whether the proposed cross-examination would be oppressive, unwarranted or unfair to the second applicant or any party.' 'Whether any cross-examination by the fourth respondent should be limited to topics not covered by the first to third respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the interests of the first to third respondents and MDR were closely aligned, distinct matters applied to MDR so their interests were not identical. The proposed topics were important to MDR's defence, had not been covered in the context of knowing participation, and a further half day of cross-examination after three and a half days of appropriate cross-examination would not be oppressive or unwarranted. A fair trial required permitting MDR's senior counsel to cross-examine, but only on factual matters not already covered and on topics where MDR contended it had a different interest from the first to third respondents.

Court Disposition

Applicants' objection rejected in part; the fourth respondent was permitted to cross-examine the second applicant on a limited basis.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 26 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the cross-examination of the second applicant, Scipio John Lipman, by senior counsel for the fourth respondent, be limited to factual matters relating to topics not covered during the cross-examination of the second applicant by senior counsel for the first to third...