Lakatoi Universal Pty Ltd & Ors v Langley Alexander Walker & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1340

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Lakatoi Universal Pty Ltd & Ors v Langley Alexander Walker & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1340 CURRENT JURISDICTION : FILE NUMBER(S) : 50035/98; 50109/98; 50110/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 19/10/99, 20/10/99 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 October 1999

50035/98 Lakatoi Universal Pty Ltd & Ors v Langley Alexander Walker & Ors PARTIES : 50109/98 Ensile Pty Ltd v Walker Consolidated Investments Pty Ltd 50110/98 Ensile Pty Ltd v Walker Consolidated Investments Pty Ltd JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Compensation Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : RJ Ellicott QC, VRW GRay, AE Galasso, SD O'Campo (Plaintiffs) AB Shand QC, DPF Officer QC, RJ POwell, CJ Leggat (Defendants) SOLICITORS : Gye & Associates (Plaintiffs) Perkes & Stone (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : Practice and procedure - Cross examination - Application to permit cross-examination by two counsel - Courts discretion whether to permit application to cross-examine by two counsel - Principles governing discretion - Importance of continuity of counsel present during cross-examination to the exercise of the discretion to permit - Importance of the nature of witness sought to be cross-examined - Application to permit cross-examination of witness by two counsel allowed Doe v Roe (1809), 2 Camp. 280; 170 E.R. 1155 Eva Pty Limited v Charles Davis Limited (1982) VR 515 CASES CITED : GPI Leisure v Herdsman Investments (No 3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15 Hadid v Australis Media [unreported Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sperling J, 11 November 1996] Phillips v Phillips (1966) 1 NSWR 49 DECISION : I allow the application in the terms in which it was made, and grant leave to the defendants to further cross-examine Mr Hogarth by either Mr Officer QC or Mr Powell, on areas and materials previously not covered by the cross-examination of Mr Shand, but permitting further cross-examination on credit generally.