Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hazledine v Arthur J Gallagher & Co Limited (No 3) [2017] FCA 1271 File number: SAD 338 of 2016
Judge: KERR J
Date of judgment: 24 October 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – submission that the Federal Court of Australia is bound by s 67E of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) – State Act to be construed as applying only to proceedings in a court of South Australia – State law otherwise inconsistent with Commonwealth law – Commonwealth law prevails where inconsistency arises – proceedings commenced in original jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia – Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) covers the field with respect to privileges available to resist compulsion to produce otherwise relevant evidence
Legislation: Constitution s 109 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 4 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 59 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 79 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) div 24.2 Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 67E
Cases cited: P v P [1994] HCA 20; (1994) 181 CLR 583 Rizeq v The State of Western Australia [2017] HCA 23; (2017) 91 ALJR 707
Date of hearing: 24 October 2017
Registry: South Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T Hurren
Solicitor for the Applicant: Harmers Workplace Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms R Nelson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
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