CITATION: CURETON v BLACKSHAW SERVICES PTY LTD AND ORS [2002] NSWCA 187 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40575/01 HEARING DATE(S): 22 May 2002
23 May 2002JUDGMENT DATE:
26 June 2002PARTIES :
William H Cureton - Appellant
Blackshaw Services Pty Ltd - First Respondent
Jack Hicks - Second Respondent
Hinemoa Pty Ltd - Third Respondent
Hicks Holdings Pty Ltd - Fourth Respondent
Hinemoa (Properties) Pty Ltd - Fifth RespondentJUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Beazley JA at 120
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :3750/92 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Palmer J
COUNSEL: C J Birch SC/A F Fernon - Appellant
M J Slattery QC/R D Marshall - RespondentsSOLICITORS: Grahame W Howe & Co - Appellant
Henshaws - RespondentsCATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - cross-examination - trial Judge's refusal to allow further cross-examination on credit - incriminate witness - credit findings - Evidence Act 1995, s128 - INTEREST - compound interest - quarterly rests - Supreme Court Rules 1970, Schedule J - commercial rates of interest LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)CASES CITED: Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v K S Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309
Alemite Lubrequip Pty Ltd v Adams (1997) 41 NSWLR 45
Attorney-General v Alford 4 De G M & G 843; (1855) 43 ER 737
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Burdick v Garrick (1870) 5 LR Ch App 233
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
Jervis v Berridge (1873) LR 8 Ch App 351
Jones v Foxall (1852) 15 Beav 388; (1851) 51 ER 588
O'Sullivan v Management Agency Music Limited [1985] QB 428
Re Tennant Mortlock v Hawker (1942) 65 CLR 473
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 75 ALJR 734
Southern Cross Commodities Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Ewing (1987) 11 ALR 818
Vyse v Foster (1842) 8 Ch App 309; (1874) LR 7 HL 318
Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544DECISION: 1 The appellant to file and serve on or before 5 July 2002 proposed short minutes of order to reflect these reasons for judgment; 2 If the appellant's short minutes are not agreed the respondent to file and serve on or before 10 July 2002 short minutes of order to reflect the reasons for judgment; 3 The appeal stood over for mention before Sheller JA at 9.30 am on Friday, 12 July 2002 for the making of orders disposing of the appeal; 4 Liberty to the parties to apply in Chambers if agreement on the short minutes is reached before 12 July 2002.
CA 40575/01
SC 3750/92MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
BEAZLEY JA
CURETON v BLACKSHAW SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS
The defendant appealed against the judgment of Palmer J given on 4 July 2001. His Honour awarded damages to the third plaintiff against…
Continue reading Cureton v Blackshaw Services Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cureton v Blackshaw Services Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 187
- Case
- [2002] NSWCA 187
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Cureton v Blackshaw Services Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute between the appellant and the respondent, heard by the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The core of the disagreement revolved around the trial judge's decision to limit further cross-examination of a witness concerning their credit, and the subsequent determination of interest on a judgment.
The Court of Appeal was required to consider two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit further cross-examination of a witness on matters affecting their credit, particularly in light of section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). Secondly, the Court had to determine the appropriate method for calculating compound interest, specifically whether quarterly rests were permissible under Schedule J of the *Supreme Court Rules 1970* (NSW) and what commercial rates of interest should apply.
In addressing the cross-examination issue, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in limiting the scope of questioning. The refusal was deemed appropriate as the proposed lines of questioning were unlikely to elicit evidence that would significantly impact the witness's credit. Regarding the interest calculation, the Court determined that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles for awarding compound interest, including the use of quarterly rests, and had set a commercially appropriate interest rate.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The Court ordered that the appellant was to prepare and serve proposed short minutes of order reflecting the Court's reasons by 5 July 2002. If these were not agreed, the respondent was to file and serve their proposed minutes by 10 July 2002. The appeal was then listed for mention before Sheller JA on 12 July 2002 for the final making of orders. Liberty was granted to the parties to apply in Chambers if agreement was reached before that date.
The Court of Appeal was required to consider two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit further cross-examination of a witness on matters affecting their credit, particularly in light of section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). Secondly, the Court had to determine the appropriate method for calculating compound interest, specifically whether quarterly rests were permissible under Schedule J of the *Supreme Court Rules 1970* (NSW) and what commercial rates of interest should apply.
In addressing the cross-examination issue, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in limiting the scope of questioning. The refusal was deemed appropriate as the proposed lines of questioning were unlikely to elicit evidence that would significantly impact the witness's credit. Regarding the interest calculation, the Court determined that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles for awarding compound interest, including the use of quarterly rests, and had set a commercially appropriate interest rate.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The Court ordered that the appellant was to prepare and serve proposed short minutes of order reflecting the Court's reasons by 5 July 2002. If these were not agreed, the respondent was to file and serve their proposed minutes by 10 July 2002. The appeal was then listed for mention before Sheller JA on 12 July 2002 for the final making of orders. Liberty was granted to the parties to apply in Chambers if agreement was reached before that date.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 The appellant to file and serve on or before 5 July 2002 proposed short minutes of order to reflect these reasons for judgment; 2 If the appellant's short minutes are not agreed the respondent to file and serve on or before 10 July 2002 short minutes of order to reflect the reasons for judgment; 3 The appeal stood over for mention before Sheller JA at 9.30 am on Friday, 12 July 2002 for the making of orders disposing of the appeal; 4 Liberty to the parties to apply in Chambers if agreement on the short minutes is reached before 12 July 2002.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.