Petar Trajkovski v R K Findlay Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 321

Petar Trajkovski v R K Findlay Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 321

The application for leave was refused because the evidence elicited in cross-examination was not exceptional, unusual, or unexpected and could reasonably have been predicted by the plaintiff, making it inappropriate to grant leave to cross-examine the witness under s 38(1)(a).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Evidence Application / Interlocutory (application to Cross Examine Own Witness)
Outcome
Leave to cross examine plaintiff's witness pursuant to s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) refused
Legal Topics
['unfavourable Witness' 'cross Examination' 'leave to Cross Examine Own Witness']
['evidence'] ['unfavourable Witness' 'cross Examination' 'leave to Cross Examine Own Witness']

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

Evidence Application / Interlocutory (application to Cross Examine Own Witness)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to cross-examine his own witness pursuant to s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because the evidence elicited in cross-examination was not exceptional, unusual, or unexpected and could reasonably have been predicted by the plaintiff, making it inappropriate to grant leave to cross-examine the witness under s 38(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Leave to cross examine plaintiff's witness pursuant to s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) refused

Orders

  • ["Leave to cross examine plaintiff's witness pursuant to s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) refused"]