Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 867

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 867

The applicant was allowed a limited further opportunity to indicate by affidavit whether she proposed to call Ms Brown because the respondents' affidavit provided some new information about attempts to contact her. The applicant's affidavit of 15 May 2007 did not directly and admissibly demonstrate manifest falsity of previous evidence, so leave to reopen the evidentiary case for that purpose was refused. The additional matters the applicant sought to raise lacked sufficient connection with the existing trial, were matters already capable of being addressed in cross-examination or final submissions, were unsupported or unconventional, or were inappropriate for the trial judge in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Post Trial Directions and Applications Concerning Further Evidence, Reopening Evidence, Proposed Motions and Final Submissions
Outcome
Directions made; leave to reopen the applicant's evidentiary case refused; leave to raise matters other than the two matters identified in the directions of 27 April 2007 refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['further Evidence After Close of Evidence' 'leave to Reopen Evidentiary Case' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'witness Competency and Credibility' 'subpoenas' 'contempt and Perjury Allegations' 'final Submissions Timetable']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'contempt of Court'] ['further Evidence After Close of Evidence' 'leave to Reopen Evidentiary Case' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'witness Competency and Credibility' 'subpoenas' 'contempt and Perjury Allegations' 'final Submissions Timetable']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Post Trial Directions and Applications Concerning Further Evidence, Reopening Evidence, Proposed Motions and Final Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be given a further opportunity to contact and call Ms Aileen Brown as a witness.' 'Whether the applicant should be granted leave to reopen her evidentiary case on the basis that further evidence demonstrated manifest falsity of evidence previously given.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to raise additional matters including a further amended statement of claim, challenges to witness competency, psychiatric examinations, contempt allegations, subpoenas, criminal reclassification of the proceeding and other proposed motion relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was allowed a limited further opportunity to indicate by affidavit whether she proposed to call Ms Brown because the respondents' affidavit provided some new information about attempts to contact her. The applicant's affidavit of 15 May 2007 did not directly and admissibly demonstrate manifest falsity of previous evidence, so leave to reopen the evidentiary case for that purpose was refused. The additional matters the applicant sought to raise lacked sufficient connection with the existing trial, were matters already capable of being addressed in cross-examination or final submissions, were unsupported or unconventional, or were inappropriate for the trial judge in the...

Court Disposition

Directions made; leave to reopen the applicant's evidentiary case refused; leave to raise matters other than the two matters identified in the directions of 27 April 2007 refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['If the applicant is in a position to call, and proposes to call, Ms A Brown to give evidence in this proceeding, she file and serve an affidavit stating that proposal, and stating the substance of the evidence which it is intended Ms Brown will give, such affidavit to be filed and served on or before 6 June 2007.'...