De Rose v The State of SA (No 4) [2001] FCA 1616

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

De Rose v The State of SA (No 4) [2001] FCA 1616

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to admit documents pursuant to s 64 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether production of witnesses would cause undue delay or cost relative to the whole of the trial itself Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 63, 64, 67 Caterpillar v John Deere Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 1903 referred to Tsang Chi Ming v Uvanna Pty Ltd (1996) 859 FCA 1 referred to ACCC v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-650 referred to PETER DE ROSE AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS (NO 4) NO SG 6001 OF 1996 O'LOUGHLIN J 18 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: 18 OCTOBER 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The evidence sought to be adduced by the State pursuant to its notices dated 15 October 2001 is not admissible, subject to the qualification in order 2. 2. The map of David Horton, MFI S6, be received into evidence as Ex S6 for the limited purpose of the markings drawn on it by the applicants' witnesses. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.