Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Procter v Kalivis (No 2) [2010] FCA 663 Citation: Procter v Kalivis (No 2) [2010] FCA 663
Parties: EVE LYNNE PROCTER, BRENDA MAUREEN PROCTER and DOC-IT PTY LTD (ACN 088 334 534) v EVANGELO KALIVIS, ACN 088 370 996 PTY LTD (ACN 088 370 996), PATRICIA ANNE DABROWSKI and TIMOTHY JOHN DABROWSKI
File number: SAD 91 of 2009
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 25 June 2010
Catchwords: DISCOVERY – application to cross-examine deponents of affidavits of discovery – where further affidavits of discovery contained statements about documents no longer in possession, custody or power of parties Held: application dismissed – cross-examination allowed in very limited circumstances – no express requirement in Rules to state searches or inquiries made – no reason to conclude that reasonable searches not made.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules O 15A r 6
Cases cited: Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 referred to Procter v Kalivis (2009) 263 ALR 461 referred to Re McGorm, Ex parte Co Operative Building Society of South Australia (1989) 86 ALR 275 referred to
Date of hearing: 17 June 2010
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 19
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D J Blight
Solicitor for the Applicants: Wallmans Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr D J Fagan SC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Fitzpatrick Solicitors Pty Ltd
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
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