CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd

1 On 1 May 2001 I ruled that the applicant unions would not be permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright on the "further hearing" of this proceeding that is to take place pursuant to an order of the Full Court. In that ruling I discussed the difference between s 28(1)(c) and s 28(1)(f) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and reached the conclusion that an order under s 28(1)(c) did not produce a new trial. When analysing the difference between the two paragraphs, I said that it was necessary to construe s 28(1)(f) as if it implicitly empowered the Full Court to grant a new trial on a particular point. At the time I had not noticed s 30. That section makes express provision for the grant of a new trial "either generally or on particular issues only". The existence of this provision tends to confirm the conclusion that I had reached, though the reasoning would now be a little different.

2 In passing I note that s 30 also authorises the Full Court in relation to a new trial to impose such conditions on a party and direct such admissions to be made by a party as are just. The existence of this power would overcome the difficulties identified in the joint judgment in Lynch v Howard (1980) 44 FLR 71.