which one of two different incompatible types of suspension, namely a “rocker” suspension or a “rocker roller” suspension the Trailer might contain;
Taking into account the failure of the Judge to rule on the admission of the IESM catalogue and to inquire into the apparent inconsistencies in [name withheld] evidence as to central aspects of Kessner Trailer’s case, in all of the circumstances the Judge did not discharge his judicial function and did not afford procedural fairness by way of a fair hearing to Mr Harradine.
Case Details
Citation[2012] SASC 96
CourtSASC
JurisdictionSouth Australia
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 41 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 41 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.
