Taylor v Santos & Ors No. Scgrg-96-2015 Judgment No. S6584

This case involved an application by the plaintiff, Taylor, for leave to cross-examine three deponents: Mr. Roberts, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Gibson. The application followed an order for the filing of affidavits, which was made by the court in May of the previous year. The plaintiff's request for leave to cross-examine was based on SCR 58.04A, which allows for cross-examination when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a deponent has not made full and proper discovery of documents. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's application should be denied, and the court had to decide whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the deponents had not made full and proper discovery.

The court found that the plaintiff's application for leave to cross-examine should be refused. The court examined the affidavits filed by the defendants and the plaintiff, along with other evidence presented during the hearing. The court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the deponents had deliberately withheld information about material documentation that was or had been in their custody or possession. The court also found that any mistakes made by the deponents in their recollection of the extent to which they had access to certain documentation were inadvertent and not such that cross-examination should result.

The court exercised its discretion and decided not to grant the plaintiff's request for cross-examination. The court found that the deponents had made a careful examination of the documentation they had and had had, and that there was no reason to go behind their assertions about whether or not documentation was presently within their custody or possession. The court was not satisfied that the likelihood of the deponents having deliberately sought to mislead the plaintiff and the court or having been careless with the truth appeared as a clear probability.

In conclusion, the court denied the plaintiff's application for leave to cross-examine the three deponents, as there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that the deponents had not made full and proper discovery of documents.