A trial judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness who is present in court, where there is no logistical impediment and no prejudice to the opposing party, constitutes a denial of procedural fairness even where the cross-examining party failed to give prior notice requiring the witness's attendance under UCPR r 35.2. The failure to require a witness for cross-examination under r 35.2 is not a breach of a procedural obligation that precludes cross-examination; it merely creates a practical risk that the witness may not attend. An employee who makes positive, unqualified oral representations about their employer's licence and insurance status, and signs a document containing such representations, is personally liable under s 18 of the ACL and is not merely a conduit.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.