Dudzinski v Aitken

[1999] QCA 419

99.419

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA

JONES J

Appeal No 8899 of 1998

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI	Appellant
and
ANDREW AITKEN	First Respondent
and
ABLE SUPPORTING AND TRAINING AGENCY	Second Respondent

BRISBANE
..DATE 05/10/99
051099 T5/BP17 M/T COA240/99
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appellant appeals against orders
dismissing two notices of motion, those filed on 17 June
1998 and 26 August 1998 and an order that the appellant
pay the respondent's costs of those proceedings.
The appellant unsuccessfully sought from a Chamber Judge

orders:

(1) That the first respondent and his solicitor be cross-

examined concerning a document contained in the
respondent's affidavit of documents and upon the

first respondent's affidavit of 13 February 1998;

(2) That the first respondent and his solicitor be

ordered to correct that document and affidavit;

(3) That the respondents produce a better particularised

defence;

(4) That the respondents give better discovery of

documents especially as to the curriculum vitae and

expert experience of the first respondent;

(5) That the first respondent and his solicitor be

treated as hostile witnesses;

(6) That the respondents' solicitor and barrister be

disqualified from conducting the case and

(7) That costs be reserved.

051099 T5/BP17 M/T COA240/99

The learned Chamber Judge gave a reasoned judgment which
has now been challenged by the appellant through very
comprehensive and extensive written submissions which he

has today orally supplemented.

Because of the extensiveness of the written material, the
Court limited in the exercise of its discretion the extent
of the oral supplementation although I note that
Mr Dudzinski did in fact speak in excess of half an hour
in the context of the 20 minute limitation.

In any event it is plain that the Court is amply informed about the basis of his contentions, noting also that for a time at least in his oral presentation, Mr Dudzinski was reading from his written submission in response to the respondents' outline.

We have also, I should say, received an outline of submissions from the respondents. We had a substantial opportunity before coming to Court to consider all of this material and we have of course in addition reviewed it in the course of this morning's oral presentations.

There is in my view no merit in the challenges now raised
by the appellant. The reasons given by the learned
Chamber Judge really need no embellishment. They were
valid and substantial reasons for refusing the relief
sought by the appellant and they find any arguably
necessary elaboration in the respondents' outline which
051099 T5/BP17 M/T COA240/99
has been placed before us for the purposes of these appeal
proceedings.

I would dismiss the appeal and order the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

JONES J: I also agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Those are the orders of the Court.

-----