Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 3) [2010] FCA 1433 Citation: CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 3) [2010] FCA 1433
Parties: CMA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 113 329 016), CMA RECYCLING PTY LIMITED (ACN 107 209 503) and CMA RECYCLING VICTORIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 005 667 103) v DOUGLAS TREVOR ROWE and WMR INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
File number: NSD 920 of 2010
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 20 December 2010
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether a party who has called a witness should be permitted to recall that witness after that witness' evidence has concluded – discussion of relevant principles – tactical decision made not to ask the witness questions directed to particular topics notwithstanding that those topics were contentious and notwithstanding that the witness could have given relevant evidence – application to recall witness refused
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128
Cases cited: Brown v Petranker (1991) 22 NSWLR 717 applied Harrington-Smith (on behalf of the Wongatha People) v Western Australia (No 8) (2004) 207 ALR 483 applied
Date of hearing: 10 December 2010
Date of order: 10 December 2010
Date of publication of Reasons: 20 December 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 30
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr NC Hutley SC, Mr JC Giles
Solicitor for the Applicants: Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P Tree SC, Mr CG Juebner
Solicitor for the Respondents: Madgwicks Lawyers
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