Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
RLA Polymers Pty Ltd v Nexus Adhesives Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1088 Citation: RLA Polymers Pty Ltd v Nexus Adhesives Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1088
Parties: RLA POLYMERS PTY LTD (ACN 004 709 915) v NEXUS ADHESIVES PTY LTD (ACN 121 120 036), JONATHAN CHARLES CLEWLOW, ISHU SOFAT and BRETT NIXON
File number(s): VID 1150 of 2007
Judge: RYAN J
Date of judgment: 6 October 2010
Date of hearing: 29 September 2010
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 60
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Derham QC with Mr A Nash
Solicitor for the Applicant: Blake Dawson
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J Wilson SC with Mr T Wodak
Solicitor for the Respondents: GPZ Legal Pty
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION VID 1150 of 2007
BETWEEN: RLA POLYMERS PTY LTD (ACN 004 709 915)
Applicant
AND: NEXUS ADHESIVES PTY LTD (ACN 121 120 036)
First Respondent
JONATHAN CHARLES CLEWLOW
Second Respondent
ISHU SOFAT
Third Respondent
BRETT NIXON
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE: ryan j
DATE: 6 october 2010
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF WITNESS STATEMENTS OF ROBERT TURNER 1 A challenge has been made by Counsel for the applicant ("RLA") to the admissibility of two witness statements by Robert Turner which the respondents seek to adduce in evidence. A first statement, which was provided to RLA on 22 February 2010, annexed a report of some seven pages purporting to answer questions posed to Mr Turner by the solicitors for the respondents. However, that witness statement has now been withdrawn by the respondents and it is unnecessary furtherto consider the objections made to it on behalf of RLA. 2 At the end of the hearing on 29 September 2010, I indicated in a summary way which of those passages from Mr Turner's second and third witness statements to which objections had been taken would be excluded as inadmissible. At the same time, I indicated that other disputed passages from Mr Turner's second and third witness statements were ruled, at least provisionally, to be admissible. I now indicate my reasons for those rulings.
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