NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Lowe v Lang [2000] NSWSC 309 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1082/96 HEARING DATE(S) : 30 March 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 March 2000
Michael Campbell Lowe (P) PARTIES : Barry Arthur Lang (D1) Erolgreen Pty Ltd (D2) JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J
COUNSEL : P T Taylor (P) P J Deakin QC and P R Stockley (D1 & 2) SOLICITORS : Baldock Stacy & Niven (P) Kenny Spring (D1 & 2) CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE [228] - Witnesses - Refreshing memory - Generally - Documents used to revive memory - Memory revised before swearing affidavits read in evidence - Whether production required under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 34 - Memory revived from part of privileged document - Rest of document not relevant to witness' testimony - Whether production of whole document should be required under s 34. LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 ss 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins (1998) 81 FCR 360 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 74 ALJR 339 Lowe v Lang [2000] NSWSC 302 Lowe v Lang [2000] NSWSC 307 CASES CITED : Mancorp Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd (1991) 57 SASR 87 Maurice v Attorney General for the NT (191986) 161 CLR 475 MGICA (1992) Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd (1996) 135 ALR 743 Northern Territory v GPAO (1999) 73 ALJR 470 Telstra Corporation Ltd v BT Australasia Pty Ltd (1998) 85 FCR 152 DECISION : Application for production of documents in part granted, in part refused.
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