Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ewin v Vergara [2012] FCA 1240 Citation: Ewin v Vergara [2012] FCA 1240
Parties: JEMMA EWIN v CLAUDIO VERGARA
File number: VID 494 of 2011
Judge: BROMBERG J
Date of judgment: 9 November 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ruling prior to trial on admissibility of evidence of proposed witnesses – s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – evidence going to the credibility of another witness inadmissible unless falls within stated exceptions – reliance upon exception in s 106 of Evidence Act premature – s 108C exception in respect of expert evidence only applies where the expert evidence deals with the capacity of the other witness to give credible evidence – proposed witness evidence inadmissible – witnesses not to be called without leave of the Court.
Legislation: Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 28B Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 102, 106, 108C, 192A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N
Cases cited: Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1496 National Australia Bank v Caporale [2012] NSWSC 509
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Reidy
Solicitor for the Applicant: Susan Moriarty & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent is self-represented
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 494 of 2011
BETWEEN: JEMMA EWIN
Applicant
AND: CLAUDIO VERGARA
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