Valder v State of New South Wales (No 2)

[2013] NSWSC 995

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Valder v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 995
Hearing dates:	23 July 2013
Decision date:	23 July 2013
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Beech-Jones J
Decision:	Application to call oral evidence from witness rejected.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE - no question of principle.
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Valdemar Ian VALDER (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: In person (Plaintiff) M. Hutchings (Defendant) Solicitors: In person (Plaintiff) Henry Davis York (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2012/300704

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Application to call solicitor for the defendant for cross examination

1. Mr Valder has made an application for the solicitor for the defendant, Ms O'Neill, to be called to give oral evidence in his case. He has provided a list of questions that he proposes to ask her.

1. At the outset it must be indicated that the court would be extremely reluctant to grant a party leave to call the solicitor for the defendant to a notice of motion seeking to punish a party for contempt, especially where no advance notice of that course has been provided.

1. In this case one topic addressed by the questions Mr Valder wishes to ask concerns the course of events at an earlier mention of the motion before Garling J on 17 July 2013. He seeks to ascertain whether or not Ms O'Neill had in her possession a copy of a subpoena that was allegedly issued by some court or other in September last year and whether she provided it to the plaintiff.

1. The circumstances are such that Mr Valder is the person who was responsible for arranging the "issue" of that subpoena and its service, so that on its face the obvious source of any evidence to clear up the status of the subpoena is him. Further, he was present at the mention before Garling J and the transcript of the day is available.

1. Further, during the course of argument this morning I made various inquiries of counsel for the defendant, who is instructed by Ms O'Neill, concerning the form of subpoena they had in their possession and they were answered. I have no reason to believe that any aspect of the instructions counsel received from his solicitor were incorrect.

1. In those circumstances, there is no proper basis in my view for allowing Ms O'Neill to be called to the witness box to answer questions concerning what occurred before Garling J on 17 July or the form of subpoena that she has in her file.

1. The other set of questions proposed to be asked by Mr Valder concern the compliance with the "subpoena" that I have referred to, as well as a further subpoena issued by this Court earlier this year.

1. In so far as the questions concern the compliance with the subpoena issued in September 2012, it is not suggested Ms O'Neill was the solicitor who attended before the Local Court when those subpoenas were returnable. In those circumstances, the strong likelihood is that any knowledge she has of those events has been acquired by reason of her retainer and is thus most likely the subject of legal professional privilege.

1. In so far as the questions concern the subpoena issued by this Court it must be remembered that the onus of proof of all matters concerning count 4 of the charges that have been laid rests on Mr Valder. In the absence of proper notice of this application having been given, I do not consider that he should be granted leave to fill any gaps in his case from the defendant's solicitor.

1. Leave is refused.

**********