Searle, B.A. v. Keayes, P. & Ors [1994] FCA 970

JUDGMENT NO. sonst 2 Qual FE.

CATCHWORDS

EVIDENCE - Cross-examination - cross-examination by more than one counsel - application for recall of witnesses for further cross-examination - litigant in person who subsequently

briefed counsel - principles

Eva Pty Ltd v Charles Davis Limited [1982] VR 515.

Phillips v Phillips {1966] 1 NSW R 49

Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Limited (No 3) (1989)

21 FCR 316

Ishac & Ors v David Securities Pty Ltd (No 5) (1992) [unreported, 24 March 1992, Supreme Court NSW Equity Division

No 3511 of 1990)

BRONWYN ANN SEARLE v PETER KEAYES & ORS

No. NG 309 of 1994

Tamberlin J Sydney 23 November 1994

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 309 of 1994

GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : BRONWYN ANN SEARLE Applicant AND : PETER KEAYES

First Respondent

RICHARD KEAYES Second Respondent

BRISALEBE AG LIMITED (ACN 060 401 827) Third Respondent

WSB (No 15) PTY LIMITED (ACN 055 949 016) Fifth Respondent

WSB (No 17) PTY LIMITED (ACN 058 901 170) Sixth Respondent

CORAM : TAMBERLIN J PLACE : SYDNEY DATED : 23 November 1994

FOR MEN'

An application has been made by newly briefed counsel on behalf of the first respondent for the recalling of one of the principal witnesses for the applicant, Mr Paterson, and also

the applicant herself for further cross—examination.

The position is that a week or so prior to the commencement of the proceedings in September this year legal advisers to the first respondent withdrew from the proceedings on the ground

that the first respondent was unable to meet their costs. The

-2- first respondent has applied for legal aid and this has been

refused on the basis that the matter is a commercial one.

Recently, the first respondent has become aware of the pro- bono legal assistance scheme provided by the New South Wales Bar Association and pursuant to this scheme counsel have now been briefed. During the first five days of the proceedings in September the first respondent in person cross-examined a number of witnesses called by the applicant. The cross-— examination took a substantial period of time and was completed. In the course of that cross-examination of the applicant the first respondent was given the opportunity to recall the applicant for further cross-examination on at least