MBL v Jp

[2011] QCA 220

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Natural justice
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Right to cross-examine
5. › Whether denial of opportunity to cross-examine deponent of affidavit evidence constituted denial of procedural fairness
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 439
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Natural justice
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Right to present case
5. › Whether requiring party to be cross-examined without access to relevant documentation denied opportunity to present case
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with discretion of court below
4. › Refusal of adjournment
5. › Whether trial judge erred in refusing adjournment
6. › Whether House v The King error established
1. Appeal
2. › New trial
3. › Denial of procedural fairness at trial
4. › Whether new trial should be ordered
5. › Whether respondent demonstrated futility of new trial

Quick Take

A trial judge's proper refusal of an adjournment does not immunise the subsequent conduct of the trial from review for procedural fairness. Where a party appears by telephone from custody, the trial judge must ensure the party has access to relevant documentation before cross-examination and must afford the party an opportunity to be heard before ruling that a deponent need not be available for cross-examination. Failure to give notice under r 439 UCPR that a deponent is required for cross-examination does not extinguish the right to cross-examine.