Ballard v Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 426

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ballard v Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 426 Hearing dates: Smart AJ 81 days between 6 September 2011 and 22 September 2011; McDougall J 9/11/2012, 10/11/11, 11/11/11, 14/11/11, 16/11/11,17/11/11, 18/11/11, 21/11/11, 22/11/11, 23/11/11, 24/11/11, 25/11/11 Decision date: 03 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Commercial List Before: McDougall J Decision: Judgment for defendants with costs Catchwords: [PROCEDURE] - plaintiff's application to reopen case - whether interests of justice favour reopening for purpose of admitting new material - whether finding by a commissioner as to the credibility of a witness is admissible in other proceedings for the purpose of proving that witness's credibility - whether plaintiff made a tactical decision not to tender an expert's report - whether expert's report, obtained on subpoena, is tendered for the purpose of responding to a submission put by the defendants as to plaintiff's alleged depression.

[EVIDENCE] - proof - standard of proof - civil - approach to assessment of credibility - burden of proof to the Briginshaw v Briginshaw standard - whether onus of proof in civil litigation is any different where the fact involves criminal conduct, fraud or serious misconduct - whether evidence of each witness should be assessed, on its own merits, for credibility - whether court can defer resolution of the question of credibility until all the facts have been found.

[TORTS] - intentional - conspiracy - harm by lawful means - harm by unlawful means - whether there existed a conspiratorial agreement between the first, second, either the third and fourth or both, or the fifth defendant and others to ensure that the plaintiff and his company were removed from the construction industry - whether defendants' intent and purpose of agreement was to injure the plaintiff - whether first and second defendants had an evil intention of the kind contemplated by Evatt J in McKernan v Fraser - whether purpose of the fifth defendant entering into agreement (if it did) was to injure the plaintiff - whether agreement becomes tainted and all participants are liable for harm if one, or all of the defendants had an evil motive and countenanced this purpose by giving assistance - whether any such conspiracy agreement was carried into execution.