KC v Shiley Inc

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 633 of 1993

BETWEEN:

KC
FIRST APPLICANT

KS BY HER NEXT FRIEND KC
SECOND APPLICANT

KF BY HER NEXT FRIEND
THIRD APPLICANT

KL BY HER NEXT FRIEND KC
FOURTH APPLICANT

AND:

SHILEY INCORPORATED
FIRST RESPONDENT

PFIZER INCORPORATED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

1 SEPTEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EX-TEMPORE

I have been invited by the respondents to reject paragraphs 48 to 69 of the statement of Mr Harvey Hilman, of 23 April 1997, which is in the course of being read. I am not prepared to reject those paragraphs as a group on the basis that they are manifestly irrelevant. Rather, I prefer to deal with each of the paragraphs seriatim which are objected to.

I have been cited a number of cases relating to the requirement for clear and cogent proof where allegations of fraud or contumelious conduct are made: see Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449. Those cases, it seems to me, really deal with the degree of satisfaction which the Court is required to have at the time when it comes to make a decision after evidence has been admitted. They do not directly bear on the admissibility of specific evidence from which such inferences are sought to be drawn.

The present case, as we all appreciate, is an extremely complex one. There is a great deal of documentation and there will no doubt be a great deal of additional evidence arising from cross-examination and further witnesses. At this stage it is premature to reject anything as irrelevant if it can be reasonably argued that it could give rise to an inference which would support the applicants' case. I am assured by Senior Counsel for the applicants that it is the applicants' case that this material will bear on the establishment of defects in the manufacturing process. This is an inferential matter arising from varied circumstances.

Accordingly I do not propose to reject that evidence in paragraphs 48 to 69 in globo. However I will deal with each paragraph specifically.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) pages is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin

Associate:

Dated: 1 September 1997

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B H K Donovan QC
Mr M L Williams

Solicitor for the Applicant: Cashman & Partners

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R J Ellicott QC
Mr J V Nicholas

Solicitor for the Respondent: Freehill Hollingdale & Page

Date of Hearing: 1 September 1997

Date of Judgment: 1 September 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of KC v Shiley Inc before Justice Tamberlin involved multiple applicants who brought a case against Shiley Inc and Pfizer Inc, likely concerning claims related to medical devices or pharmaceuticals. The case was complex, involving a substantial amount of documentation and evidence, which was expected to be further elaborated through cross-examination and additional witnesses. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry. Justice Tamberlin was tasked with determining the admissibility and relevance of specific paragraphs from a statement submitted by the applicants' counsel, Mr Harvey Hilman.

The primary legal issue before Justice Tamberlin was whether certain paragraphs (48 to 69) from Hilman's statement should be rejected as irrelevant or if they should be allowed to stand for further examination and potential relevance to the applicants' case. The applicants argued that the contested paragraphs could support the inference of defects in the manufacturing process, a key element of their case. The respondents, on the other hand, sought to have these paragraphs dismissed outright.

Justice Tamberlin decided against rejecting the contested paragraphs en masse, opting instead to address each one individually to determine its relevance. The judge noted that the admissibility of evidence in cases involving allegations of fraud or contumelious conduct required clear and cogent proof, as established in precedent cases such as Briginshaw v Briginshaw and Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd. However, Tamberlin held that these cases pertained more to the level of satisfaction required by the court when making a decision rather than the admissibility of specific evidence. Given the complexity of the case and the potential for the evidence to support the applicants' claims, the judge found it premature to dismiss the paragraphs outright without further examination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 633 of 1993

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	1 SEPTEMBER 1997
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr B H K Donovan QC Mr M L Williams
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Cashman & Partners
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R J Ellicott QC Mr J V Nicholas
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Date of Hearing:	1 September 1997
Date of Judgment:	1 September 1997