Brandon, Mark John & Ors Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 676

Brandon, Mark John & Ors Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 676

The material filed by the applicants was sufficient to give the Commonwealth a clear idea of the facts to be proved and the basis of each applicant's case for an extension, and many of the requested particulars resembled interrogatories or cross-examination; the Commonwealth's motions for particulars were therefore refused. Mr Mewett had not satisfied the Court that he was unable to travel to Australia to give evidence, no party had applied for video link evidence, and the comparative costs did not justify an examination in London; his motion was also refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings Against the Commonwealth / Interlocutory Motions for Particulars and for Examination of an Applicant in England in Connection With Limitation Extension Applications
Outcome
Respondent's motions for particulars refused; Mr Mewett's motion for examination in England refused; costs to be each party's costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['particulars' 'extension of Limitation Period' 'examination of Witness Outside Australia' 'video Link Evidence' 'evidence and Witness Demeanour']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'personal Injury' 'negligence'] ['particulars' 'extension of Limitation Period' 'examination of Witness Outside Australia' 'video Link Evidence' 'evidence and Witness Demeanour']

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

Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings Against the Commonwealth / Interlocutory Motions for Particulars and for Examination of an Applicant in England in Connection With Limitation Extension Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commonwealth should be granted orders requiring the applicants to provide requested particulars for the pending limitation extension applications.' 'Whether the affidavits and medical reports filed by the applicants sufficiently disclosed the facts and basis of their applications for extension of limitation periods.' "Whether Mr Mewett's evidence should be taken in England by appointing the hearing judge as examiner on terms that the Commonwealth pay the associated costs." 'Whether Mr Mewett had established that he was unable to travel to Australia to give evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The material filed by the applicants was sufficient to give the Commonwealth a clear idea of the facts to be proved and the basis of each applicant's case for an extension, and many of the requested particulars resembled interrogatories or cross-examination; the Commonwealth's motions for particulars were therefore refused. Mr Mewett had not satisfied the Court that he was unable to travel to Australia to give evidence, no party had applied for video link evidence, and the comparative costs did not justify an examination in London; his motion was also refused.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motions for particulars refused; Mr Mewett's motion for examination in England refused; costs to be each party's costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["In ng 374 of 1994, the respondent's motion seeking an order for particulars is refused." "In ng 374 of 1994, the costs of the motion are to be each party's costs in the cause." "In ng 529 of 1994, the respondent's motion seeking an order for particulars is refused." "In ng 529 of 1994, the costs of the motion are...