Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 533

Because the affidavit was not filed pursuant to any court direction or compulsion, it is not caught by the Harman implied undertaking, and cross-examination on its content is permissible.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 10 June 2009
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application/ruling
Outcome: Cross-examination permitted
Legal Topics: ['cross Examination' 'implied Undertaking' 'use of Affidavits From Other Proceedings' 'security for Costs']

['civil Procedure'] ['cross Examination' 'implied Undertaking' 'use of Affidavits From Other Proceedings' 'security for 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

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application/ruling

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether counsel may cross-examine a witness on the content of an affidavit sworn by him in other proceedings without breaching the Harman obligation']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the affidavit was not filed pursuant to any court direction or compulsion, it is not caught by the Harman implied undertaking, and cross-examination on its content is permissible.

Court Disposition

Cross-examination permitted

Orders

['Mr Lazarus may embark upon the course of cross-examination he proposes regarding the March 2009 affidavit, without breaching the substantive law obligation discussed in Hearne v Street.']