Lakatoi v Walker [1999] NSWSC 1088

Lakatoi v Walker [1999] NSWSC 1088

In light of the complexity and volume of the case, the length and late delivery of key witness statements, and the factual matrix of counsel's unavailability for medical reasons, it is a proper exercise of discretion to allow further cross-examination by either Mr Officer QC or Mr Powell, but only on areas and materials not previously covered by Mr Shand, including generally on issues of credit, with the court maintaining control to prevent oppression.

Parties
Plaintiffs: Lakatoi Universal Pty Limited & ors; Defendants: Langley Alexander Walker & ors; Plaintiff: Ensile Pty Limited; Defendants: Walker Consolidated Investments Pty Ltd & ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Regarding Further Cross Examination
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Cross Examination by Multiple Counsel, Judicial Discretion in Commercial List
Evidence Civil Procedure Cross Examination by Multiple Counsel Judicial Discretion in Commercial List

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakatoi Universal Pty Limited & ors

Plaintiffs

Langley Alexander Walker & ors

Defendants

Ensile Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Walker Consolidated Investments Pty Ltd & ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Regarding Further Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to allow further cross-examination of Mr Hogarth by another counsel for the defendants after prior cross-examination was not completed due to counsel's absence for medical reasons

Ratio Decidendi

In light of the complexity and volume of the case, the length and late delivery of key witness statements, and the factual matrix of counsel's unavailability for medical reasons, it is a proper exercise of discretion to allow further cross-examination by either Mr Officer QC or Mr Powell, but only on areas and materials not previously covered by Mr Shand, including generally on issues of credit, with the court maintaining control to prevent oppression.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to the defendants to further cross-examine Mr Hogarth by either Mr Officer QC or Mr Powell on areas and materials previously not covered by the cross-examination of Mr Shand, but permitting further cross-examination on credit generally.