Hodgson v Amcor Ltd;; Amcor Ltd v Barnes (No. 6) - [2011] VSC 294

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9420 of 2004

JAMES GEORGE HODGSON	Plaintiff
v
AMCOR LTD AND ORS (ACN 000 017 372)	Defendant

No. 8181 of 2007

AMCOR LTD AND ORS (ACN 000 017 372)	Plaintiffs
v
TREVOR MARK BARNES AND ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY, J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 June 2011
DATE OF RULING:	22 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HODGSON v AMCOR LTD; AMCOR LTD v BARNES (No. 6)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 294

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by a party to examine a witness in the same interest in a joint trial by asking non-leading questions - Application granted in the interest of justice – Cross-Examination of a witness in the same interest considered and compared – Value of such cross-examination considered – Control of examination by the Court considered – Directions given as to procedure to be followed – Sections 11(1), 26, 27, 28 and 42 Evidence Act 2008 – Part 2.3, s.25, 47 and 49 Civil Procedure Act 2010.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff (9420 of 2004)	Mr C Gunst QC with Mr P Booth of counsel	A.J. Macken & Co
For the Defendant (9420 of 2004)	Mr WT Houghton QC with Dr SB McNicol and Mr G Fitzgerald of counsel	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Plaintiffs (8181 of 2007)	Mr WT Houghton QC with Dr SB McNicol and Mr G Fitzgerald of counsel	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
The First Defendant (8181 of 2007)	Mr T Barnes appeared in person
The Second–Fourth Defendants (8181 of 2007)	Mr P Riordan SC with Mr SJ Maiden of counsel	Mills Oakley
The Fifth Defendant (8181 of 2007)	Mr Sangster appeared in person
The Sixth–Seventh Defendants (8181 of 2007)	Mr M Champion of counsel	Mr David Shaw

HIS HONOUR:

There are two proceedings before the Court, namely the Hodgson proceeding (No.9420 of 2004) and the Barnes proceeding (No.8181 of 2004). This trial has been conducted concurrently with evidence called in one proceeding being evidence in the other.

In the course of the trial Mr Sangster who is the fifth defendant in the Barnes proceeding, and who appears as a self represented litigant, completed his evidence-in-chief. He was then cross-examined by junior counsel for the Amcor parties, Mr Fitzgerald. The Amcor parties are the plaintiffs in the Barnes proceeding.

At the conclusion of the cross-examination, I invited Mr Sangster to respond to anything put to him in the course of his cross-examination which he considered he had not answered fully. Mr Gunst QC, senior counsel for Mr Hodgson, then rose to his feet and said, "Your Honour, should any other party who wishes to cross-examine Mr Sangster go before he is ready to re-examine himself."

Discussion then continued during which it became clear that Mr Gunst did not seek to cross-examine Mr Sangster but rather to ask him non leading questions.

Mr Houghton QC, senior counsel for the Amcor parties, drew my…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hodgson v Amcor Ltd;; Amcor Ltd v Barnes (No. 6) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] VSC 294
Decision Date: 22 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Hodgson and Amcor Ltd, along with a related proceeding between Amcor Ltd and Barnes. The crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of procedural rules governing witness examination in joint trials. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the trial judge had to decide whether Amcor Ltd could cross-examine a witness in the same interest as Hodgson.

The legal issues that the court had to address were primarily concerned with the procedural rights of the parties involved in a joint trial and the extent to which a party could examine a witness who was in the same interest. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Amcor Ltd could ask non-leading questions during its cross-examination of the witness, and if so, under what conditions and with what limitations. This involved an interpretation of sections 11(1), 26, 27, 28 and 42 of the Evidence Act 2008 and sections 25, 47 and 49 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The court, in granting Amcor Ltd’s application, balanced the need for fairness and efficiency in the trial process with the procedural rights of the parties. It considered the value of the cross-examination in the interest of justice and whether it would unduly prejudice the other party. The court provided detailed directions on the procedure to be followed to ensure that the examination was conducted fairly and that the rights of all parties were protected. The ruling emphasised the importance of controlling the examination to prevent any unfair advantage and to maintain the integrity of the trial process. The court’s decision was grounded in a careful analysis of the relevant statutes and case law, ensuring that the procedural rights were balanced with the overarching need for a just outcome.

The final orders included detailed directions on the permissible scope and manner of the cross-examination, ensuring that the process would be fair and balanced, and would not prejudice the rights of the other parties involved in the joint trial.

Orders