Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mariusz Zmudzinski v Cheapa Campa Pty Limited and Camper Travel Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 997 Hearing dates: 23 August 2011 Decision date: 23 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Black J Decision: Application for leave to cross-examine not granted. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - Cross-examination in interlocutory application Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Mariusz Zmudzinski (Plaintiff) Cheapa Campa Pty Limited (First Defendant) Camper Travel Pty Limited (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms Dale Bampton (Plaintiff) Ms Nula Shaw (First Defendant) Mr Alexander Flecknoe-Brown (Second Defendant) Solicitors: Legal Aid New South Wales (Plaintiff) McCullough Robertson (First Defendant) Williams Graham Carman (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2011/174472 Judgment 1Application is made by the First Defendant, Cheapa Campa Pty Limited ("Cheapa Campa"), for leave to cross-examine the Plaintiff, Mr Zmudzinski, in respect of an affidavit that he has sworn in opposition to Cheapa Campa's application for transfer of these proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland. 2Ms Shaw, who appears for Cheapa Campa on the motion, has indicated that that cross-examination will seek to establish that Mr Zmudzinski conducts another business in addition to his occupation as a supervisor to which reference is made in his affidavit and, by reason of the nature of that business, the evidence before the Court (including his application to Legal Aid New South Wales and the evidence filed by Ms Grey from Legal Aid New South Wales) does not establish his true financial position. I have concluded that I should not grant leave to cross-examine as to that subject matter because, having regard to the evidence which has been filed by the parties in respect of the motion, cross-examination as to Mr Zmudzinski's financial position or uncertainty as to what he might or might not have earned from another business is highly unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the motion. 3Ms Shaw also seeks to cross-examine Mr Zmudzinski as to the circumstances of his entry into a Rental Agreement between him and Cheapa Campa. The Plaintiff's attack on that agreement will be a central issue in the substantive proceedings seeking statutory and other relief in respect of that agreement. I do not understand on the evidence before me that there is any contest that the Plaintiff signed the Rental Agreement, although his evidence is that he does not recall doing so, or that the Rental Agreement was signed in Sydney when he collected a camper van that was rented on the terms of that agreement. I also do not consider that cross-examination as to that matter would be of utility in respect of the issue raised by the motion although it may ultimately be of real significance to the issues raised by the substantive proceedings. 4In determining the application for leave to cross-examine the Plaintiff, I have had particular regard to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act which requires me to have regard to the overriding purpose of the Act and, in particular, the purpose of facilitating a just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute in the motion. I am required in exercising the discretion under that section to have regard to the objects of case management specified in s 57 of the Act which include a just determination of the proceedings and also to have regard to the matters referred to in s 58 in determining the dictates of justice. In my view, the matters as to which Ms Shaw seeks to cross-examine the Plaintiff would not assist with the just determination of the motion and the time spent in that cross-examination would not be conducive to the efficient disposal of the Court's business. 5Accordingly I decline leave to Cheapa Campa cross-examine the Plaintiff in respect of the motion. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 August 2011