ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 1015

ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 1015

The evidence under objection was not proper re-examination because the asserted inconsistency between Mr Weston's March statement that the UK was on track to achieve GBP17 million EBITDA and his May presentation showing a lower realistic assessment was already present in ASIC's evidence before cross-examination. The re-examination questions about his true belief in March were directed to explaining that pre-existing inconsistency, not a matter arising out of evidence given in cross-examination. The evidence was therefore excluded from the tender of the deposition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Equity Division Proceedings / Objection to Tender of Deposition Evidence After Re Examination
Outcome
Evidence excluded
Legal Topics
['proper Scope of Re Examination' 'matters Arising Out of Cross Examination' 'exclusion of Deposition Evidence' 'procedural Fairness']
['evidence'] ['proper Scope of Re Examination' 'matters Arising Out of Cross Examination' 'exclusion of Deposition Evidence' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Ruling in Equity Division Proceedings / Objection to Tender of Deposition Evidence After Re Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether questions asked in re-examination about Mr Weston's true belief when he told the board that the UK was on track for GBP17 million EBITDA were about matters arising out of his evidence in cross-examination under s 39 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether the evidence under objection should be excluded from the tender of Mr Weston's deposition." "Whether it was necessary to decide the defendants' argument under s 135 of the Evidence Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence under objection was not proper re-examination because the asserted inconsistency between Mr Weston's March statement that the UK was on track to achieve GBP17 million EBITDA and his May presentation showing a lower realistic assessment was already present in ASIC's evidence before cross-examination. The re-examination questions about his true belief in March were directed to explaining that pre-existing inconsistency, not a matter arising out of evidence given in cross-examination. The evidence was therefore excluded from the tender of the deposition.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded

Orders

  • ["When the formalities for preparation of Mr Weston's deposition have been completed, the questions and answers from UK T 981.23 to T 982.25 inclusive will be excluded from the tender of that deposition."]