| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 2068 of 2001
| IGA DISTRIBUTION PTY LTD | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| KING & TAYLOR PTY LTD | First Defendant |
| DELAHEY PROPERTIES PTY LTD | Second Defendant |
---
RULING NO. 5
JUDGE: | Nettle J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATES OF HEARING: | 11 September 2002 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 11 September 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King & Taylor Pty Ltd and anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 404 | |
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr R.M. Garratt QC | Cornwall Stodart |
| For the First Defendant | Mr J.D. Hammond QC | Richard Szental |
| For the Second Defendant | Mr P.J. Hayes with Ms L. Hannon | Efron & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
I note that Mr Garratt has sought to tender absolutely a communication recording the contents of a conversation had on 18 July 2001 between Mr Shaw and Mr Assetta and that objection has been taken on the grounds that it is protected as a without prejudice communication.
Questions have been asked by Mr Hammond on behalf of the first defendant in the course of the cross-examination of Mr Shaw in an endeavour to establish that the communications were in truth without prejudice in the sense that they were conducted in order to settle or to move towards settlement of an existing dispute.
I have allowed to Mr Garratt, who appears for the plaintiff, the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Assetta, the other party to the conversation, in order to add to the evidence as to the nature of the communications before I rule upon that communication and he has accepted that invitation.
In the circumstances, I will stand over until after Mr Assetta's cross-examination a final ruling upon the question.
---
- AGLC
- IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King and Taylor Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 404
- Case
- [2002] VSC 404
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the communication was indeed without prejudice, thereby barring its admissibility. The plaintiff argued that the communication was not without prejudice, as it did not pertain to any attempt to settle an existing dispute. The defendants, however, contended that the communication was intended to facilitate a settlement of the ongoing dispute between the parties, thus qualifying it as a without prejudice communication. The court needed to examine the nature of the conversation and the context in which it took place to make a ruling.
Justice Nettle allowed the plaintiff to cross-examine the other party to the conversation to gather additional evidence. The court decided to stand over its ruling until after this cross-examination to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the communication's nature. The judgment reflects the court's cautious approach in handling without prejudice communications, recognising the importance of protecting parties engaged in genuine settlement negotiations.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.