In the matter of Sunnyside Bettoni Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1891

In the matter of Sunnyside Bettoni Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1891

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the application was only about costs after the substantive relief had been resolved by compromise, cross-examination on interlocutory applications is discretionary and exercised sparingly, and it would be wrong to permit cross-examination about the same issues where there remained a prospect of a contempt prosecution against Mr Carelli.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List; Procedural Ruling / Application by the Plaintiff for Leave to Cross Examine the Second Defendant in a Costs Application After Substantive Relief Had Been Resolved by Compromise
Outcome
Leave to cross-examine Mr Carelli refused.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination on Interlocutory Applications' 'costs After Compromise of Substantive Relief' 'contempt Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['cross Examination on Interlocutory Applications' 'costs After Compromise of Substantive Relief' 'contempt Proceedings']

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

Equity Corporations List; Procedural Ruling / Application by the Plaintiff for Leave to Cross Examine the Second Defendant in a Costs Application After Substantive Relief Had Been Resolved by Compromise

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to cross-examine Mr Carelli in an interlocutory costs application.' 'Whether leave should be refused because the proposed cross-examination concerned matters that could also found a possible prosecution for contempt.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to cross-examine was refused because the application was only about costs after the substantive relief had been resolved by compromise, cross-examination on interlocutory applications is discretionary and exercised sparingly, and it would be wrong to permit cross-examination about the same issues where there remained a prospect of a contempt prosecution against Mr Carelli.

Court Disposition

Leave to cross-examine Mr Carelli refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to cross-examine Mr Carelli.']