FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ample Source International Ltd v Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd; In the Matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited (No 4) [2011] FCA 836
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
IN THE MATTER OF BONYTHON METALS GROUP PTY LIMITED (ACN 141 257 294)
| DATE OF ORDER: | |
| WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The evidence from page 361 line 36 to page 364 line 38 of the transcript is rejected.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
| NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
| GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 1784 of 2010 |
IN THE MATTER OF BONYTHON METALS GROUP PTY LIMITED (ACN 141 257 294)
| BETWEEN: | AMPLE SOURCE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED BVCIN 1575638 Plaintiff |
| AND: | BONYTHON METALS GROUP PTY LIMITED ACN 141 357 294 First Defendant JOHN HILLAM Second Defendant CFM MEDIA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED ACN 143 465 909 Third Defendant SAROBOL TEERANUKUL Fourth Defendant WENTWORTH METAL GROUP PTY LIMITED ACN 139 532 719 Fifth Defendant |
| JUDGE: | ROBERTSON J |
| DATE: | 25 JULY 2011 |
| PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 An issue has arisen as to whether certain evidence provisionally given, over objection by counsel for the second to fifth defendants, in re-examination by Ms Lau should be admitted into evidence.
2 I allowed that evidence to be led provisionally so that counsel for the second to fifth defendants could better see whether and to what extent there was prejudice to those defendants.
3 Counsel for the second to fifth defendants opposes the admission of this evidence.
4 The evidence would seek to change or qualify the witness’s answers given yesterday morning in cross-examination, at pages 184 to 185 of the transcript, as to whether, as of July 2011, she would like to have a particular deed executed to have the Redan lease included into what has been referred to as the Hawson’s Joint Venture.
5 The witness sought to change or qualify her previous answers first thing this morning while still in cross-examination having reflected on her answers overnight, but, as I have said, cross-examining counsel for the second to fifth defendants opposed that evidence being given and asked no question designed to adduce it.
6 Counsel for the second to fifth defendants submits that there will be great prejudice to his side in admitting these oral statements into evidence. He submits there would have been a whole area of cross-examination of this witness and of Mr Cheung.
7 Mr Cheung was interposed and gave his evidence yesterday having travelled from Hong Kong and was excused in order to return to Hong Kong. Mr Cheung gave his evidence between the time of Ms Lau’s original answers on this topic and her expressed desire to change or qualify that evidence.
8 Counsel for the second to fifth defendants says that on the basis of Ms Lau’s evidence yesterday he made a decision not to cross-examine Mr Cheung on this issue either at all or at any length.
9 The factors I take into account are first, the degree of difference between yesterday’s considered answers and the provisional evidence this morning.
10 Secondly, but importantly, I take into account the efficient running of the trial.
11 Thirdly, I take into account the statement of counsel for the second to fifth defendants that he has made forensic decisions on the basis of the answers the witness gave yesterday.
12 I do not think it is a persuasive response that Ms Lau could be further cross-examined or that Mr Cheung could give further evidence from Hong Kong.
13 Weighing up these factors I shall reject and exclude from the evidence in the case the answers given provisionally by Ms Lau in re-examination and objected to by counsel for the second to the fifth defendants. The excluded parts are from page 361 line 36 to page 364 line 38 of the transcript.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson. |
Associate:
