FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Platcher v Joseph [2004] FCAFC 68

CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH

N72 OF 2003

CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENT COMMISSION

N73 OF 2003

TAMBERLIN, EMMETT & WEINBERG JJ

26 MARCH 2004

SYDNEY

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N72 OF 2003

Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment of Weinberg J delivered on 26 March 2004.

Para [117] should now commence as follows:

“[117]  During the hearing before the primary judge, immediately after the Commission’s case had concluded, Mr Platcher sought to read an affidavit sworn by Mr Pettenon.  The affidavit had been sworn on 7 February 2002, and served upon the Commission through its then counsel, Mr Stack, on 11 February 2002.  Mr Beaumont, counsel for the Commission, was given a copy about two weeks prior to 24 June 2002, the date of the commencement of the trial.  That was when he was eventually briefed in the substantive proceeding, as opposed to the earlier interlocutory proceedings.  In the affidavit Mr Pettenon said as follows: …”

Para [140] should now read:

“[140]  It was when Mr Platcher sought to tender Mr Pettenon’s affidavit that problems arose.  As indicated earlier, once the Commission had closed its case, Mr Platcher sought to read that affidavit.  However, as noted in par [117], Mr Beaumont had only been provided with a copy of that affidavit some two weeks or so before the commencement of the trial.  He had not read the transcript of the s 19 examination to which Mr Pettenon referred in par 6 of his affidavit.  Presumably it was that fact, in part, that led him to object to Mr Pettenon being permitted to expand upon what he had said, in impermissible form, in pars 4 and 5.”   

Associate:

Dated:              29 March 2004