Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd v Anaconda Nickel Limited [2002] VSC 365

Supreme Court of Victoria|2002-08-30|Before: Balmford J

For the reasons set out, the appeal will be dismissed in so far as it relates to the proposed orders 4 and 6; and it would seem that proposed order 5 must fall with them. It may be that it is intended to retain the Master's order 4 as to any non-party subpoena; and there seems to be no difficulty with proposed orders 7, 8 and 9. However, counsel may wish to make submissions as to these matters.

[3] per Lord Denning MR and Scarman LJ.

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996

Attorney0General for the State of Victoria v Garbor Horvath, Senior [2001] VSC 269

R v Hoser and Kotabi Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 443

R v Spectator Staff Pty Ltd [1999] VSC 107

TPC v Feather Mills Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 415; (1990) 26 FCR 555

. . . the criminal nature of the proceeding is reflected in the common law requirement that proof be beyond reasonable doubt_: Keeley v Brooking_ [1979] HCA 28; (1979) 143 CLR 162; and that the person accused could not, as His Honour correctly said, be compelled to give evidence: Conmet Products U.K. Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67 at 73; although should she elect to do so she is liable to be cross-examined.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (9)