Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Rose v The State of SA (No 3) [2001] FCA 1615
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – party seeking to tender part of expert's doctoral thesis and lead evidence regarding it – document discovered to other parties well into trial and outside timetable ordered by the Court for the exchange of experts' reports – consideration whether or not to allow material to be admitted into evidence and further oral evidence led from the witness on that document De Rose v State of South Australia and Others (No 2) [2001] FCA 1614 distinguished State of Queensland v JL Holdings (1996) 141 ALR 353 followed PETER DE ROSE AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS (NO 3) NO SG 6001 OF 1996 O'LOUGHLIN J 12 OCTOBER 2001 ADELAIDE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SG 6001 OF 1996
BETWEEN: PETER DE ROSE
FIRST APPLICANT
OWEN KUNMANARA
SECOND APPLICANT
PETER TJUTJATJA
THIRD APPLICANT
JOHNNY WIMITJA DE ROSE
FOURTH APPLICANT
MICHAEL MITAKIKI
FIFTH APPLICANT
PANNIKAN BAKER
SIXTH APPLICANT
PEGGY CULLINAN
SEVENTH APPLICANT
RINI KULYURU
EIGHTH APPLICANT
PUNA YANIMA
NINTH APPLICANT
JULIE TJAMI
TENTH APPLICANT
SADIE SINGER
ELEVENTH APPLICANT
WHISKEY TJUKANKU
TWELTH APPLICANT
AND: THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT
R D FULLER PTY LTD AND DOUGLAS CLARENCE FULLER
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 OCTOBER 2001
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate