Petie, R.D. v National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Limited

[1985] FCA 180

d

4

BEUi'EN : J O B E R T DAWSOM PETIE

A p p l l c a n t

m: NATIONAL COMMERCIAL

.___ BANKING CORPORATICN OF

A U S T R A L I A L I M I T E D

Flespondent

- CORtW: Bower: C . J .

3 May 1985

EX TEMPORE JUDGIE'NT

- 2 -

P o l n t s of c l a l m and p o l n t s of defence ~ Z J ? been Clled S y

tile? par t125 in accordance with a n e a r l i e r or r ' 9 r of a JuSge of

t h i s c o u r t . From the p o i n t s of c l a ln and 3 o l n t s of defence the

issues s lms tan t l a l ly emerue . I t IS c l e a r that t h e a c t u a l

dls,ute, s o fa r as c o n f l l c t of evldence 1 s corcernecl, i s f a l r l y

narrov. The not lon b?fore me today 1 s brought by Y r . Petle, who

I may mcntlon 1s an o f f i c e r of the unlon to whlch :*It-. Ijunn

belonqs. and he seeks an o rder tha t the hear lng of t he ma t t e r

proceed by a f f ldavi t ev ldence , and cer tam consequential o r d e r s

lf t h a t o r d e r be made. T h l s motlon 1 s opposed by the respondent .

Tne Court or a Jddue ma: i: any t l m ,

f o r s ~ f f i c l e n t '-?ason = ' 2 on s ~ , : h

s o n d l t l c n ; ( i f any) as -.l:' Ccur: QL-

Judge :;?:nk-; necfsszry 17 :!.+ xntel-es:s

of ~ ~ s t l c ? , dlrr-c: or ~ l - o w proor b y

a f f l d a v l c a t t h e c r l a l C I a cause zo

such extent	as t>? Courr; CL- judge cFLlnks
f l t .

Motwitnstandlnq any under crzer

sub-secclon (3), if a par:? t o a cause

d e s i r e s i n good f a l t h t h a t t h e maker of

an a f f i d a v i t ( o t h e r t h a n an a f f l d a v l t

r e f e r r ed to In sub - sec t lon (2)) proposed

t o used be I n cduse be the

cross-exanlned v i t h r e s p e c t t o h e

m a t t e r s i n t h e a f f ; d a v l i , cne a f f l d a v l t

may not be used I n t h e CZLCSP u n l e s s t n a t

person appears as a wlcness for such

cros?-examlnat lon or the Courc, In ~ t s

d l s c r e t l o n , F e r m l t s t h e a f f l d a v l t t o be

used rnthout the person so a2Fearlnu.

I f t n e partles t o a caus? so agree s n d

the Court does not t5zrwlse order ,

testlmonp a t t h e t r n l of the cause may

be given by a € f l d a v i t .

Sub jec t t o t he fo reuo ing p rov l s lons of

t h l s e c t l o n and w l t h o u t pre3ucilce t o

any c ther l a w tha t would , i f this

sub-section been enacted, not had

sxp res s ly p r m l t an:I t eE tmony t o bc

or;herwlse q l v e n , testlrrony a t r;he r;rlt,l

of cau5es shall be given o r a l l y :n

c o u r t . ' I

In the present case, ~t 1s submltted on b e k - f c f rhe

apsllcant that In the interests of expedltion I should :sake the

order for affldavit evidence. It 1s esElmated that lf t:L~s Lie

done, the case would occupy at the most two days wherea-;, n ~ ? rhe other hand, wich oral evldence and reierr;ng to an estzmzte oi It by the respondent, It 1s llkely co take fom- days. Cohnspl for

the applicant suggests he v111 be calllnc one wltness and counsel

for the respondent suggests he will be calllng faur or f1ve. It

is probable that che case would be shortened by naklng an order

for the case to proceed by way of affldavlt evldence: elch party

would have notlce In advance of the case to be made by the other

slde and the oral evldence ould be restk-1crd LC,

C i 0 3 4 - ~ X 4 ! ~ l i n a t i O I ~ ~ of witnesses on thelr affliavlts. I c 1 5

f u r w ~ r subrlcted for the a?pllcanc tnor ?!F lssues :'!I?~-'. ::-z'~'e

is a dlspute on tie fscts are narrow anil wlll lenmi tl!rir[?r--'+S to

decermlnatlon on aff ldavlt evldence, provldsd of sours':, t k , = ~

there be allowed cross-exammation when thac 1 s ci?slrei .

- 5 -

It w x l l Es re r t ed I n thz s r jp l lcan t 3 c a s ? t h a t nc.

n 'rcicc vas T l v e n , x l e r 2 . 3 ~ t h e witnesses to b e c a l l e c by t h e

r-.s?or.d.ent w l l l , I t seems, a s s e r t t h a t n o t l c e I n one form OL-

anc the r was g l v e n , and. t h e r e w l l l be a c o n f l l c t of evldence In

thls a r e a . This 15 a f a i r l y n a r r o w I s sue , but I t seems ~t w i l l

F a l s e q u e s t i o n s of whos? recollection IS accurace and xho wlll be

bel leved. Counsel for the respondent subnl t ted thz t I t 7a5

des i rab le to have wlcr ,esces y lve the i r ev ldence in chl?f @!l s u c h

an Issue 3 r a l l y , r a the r t han I n a form s ? t t l e d b y s o l l c l t o r s o r

c o u n s e l I n a n a f f f l d a v l t . He re fer red to PAt torney-Genera l v

MetroPol i tm Cls t r1c t Ral lwav ComPanv (1880) 5 Ex.D.218.

Counsel f o r tne sppllc;: L s u q q e s ~ s t h a t X P ~ Z F I - that

a f f l d a v l t s DP f l l e d 1s clfferc::: In h n d from X: ~ ~ ( i e r f a r

d : scovery o r ln te r roga tcr les : : does not compel E X r?cyc.naent

t o p u t a n y t h l n ? on. On t h e oth;.r hand, I t 1 s a p p ~ r ~ n t . that li

t 5 e respondent 1 s dlrecteci LO flle a f f ldavx t s and a ~ c s not io s o ,

he may b e p r e c l u d e d f r o m l a t e r f l l l n u a f f l d a v l t s o r cz7: l lng oral

ev ldence ac the last moment. So t h e r e would be 3 p r a c t i c a l

con;pulslon t o put h i s ev idence on . I t 1s t r u e :hat :h: f a c t t h a t

a n a f f l d a v l t 1 s filed does not ms::? :t p a r t of th? procoeclngs I n

the Court or evldence i n the prcceedlngs unless I t b.? -,:ndered by

o n e p a r t y o r t h e o t h e r ; n e v e r t h e l z s s , t h e a f f i d a n t s woula De on

f i l e . I t 1 s a p p a r m t h a t h e r e a r e c l r c u m s t a n c e s 13 which cne

o t h e r p a r t y mly tender hls o p p o n e n t ' s a f f l d a o l t s o r some

paragraphs of Lhem i f they a re no t t endered by che party who

f i l e d them.