Case: Crest Realty Pty Ltd (No 2) (In liquidation) (1977) 1 NSWLR 664
Outcome: cited
I accept that the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 has an important function to play in the course of a trial, as recently made clear by the Full Court in Jardein Pty Ltd v Stathakis [2007] FCAFC 148 , at [27] to [33]: Where a party intends to contradict or challenge the testimony of an opposing party's witness, the party is obliged to put that witness on notice that his or her account will be challenged: Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67. This gives the witness an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The reason this is done is as a matter of basic fairness. See Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 per Hunt J. Adherence to the rule in Browne v Dunn also gives the party calling the witness the chance to adduce supporting evidence which might not otherwise have been led. Compliance with the rule requires only that the substance of the contrary version is put to the witness, and not every detail of the challenge: White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower &amp; Hart (a firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169 at 217 per Goldberg J. In a civil case the consequences of a failure to observe the rule will vary. However, they will usually be related to the central object of the rule which is to secure fairness. In Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219 Mahoney JA said (at 236 237): "This kind of problem may arise at different times in the litigation. It may arise during the trial. Thus, where a party fails to cross-examine a witness at all or on a particular matter, it may be prudent for the trial judge at the time to draw the attention of counsel in an appropriate way to the effect this may have on the later conduct of the trial. It may be that the question arises at a later stage in the trial when counsel seeks to call evidence contradicting the witness or discrediting his evidence, or seeks to address upon the basis that the witness' evidence is untrue. The trial judge may then have to determine what course should be followed. Sometimes the interests of justice may be served by having the witness recalled for cross-examination. Sometimes the circumstances may be such that the only way in which justice can be achieved is by directing that, for example, it is not open to counsel, in address, to make such suggestion. What is to be done will depend, as I have said, upon the circumstances of the case." A possible consequence of a breach of the rule may be that the party in breach will be prevented from suggesting that the witness' testimony should be disbelieved. Another possible consequence will be the exclusion of evidence that challenges the witness' account with respect to those matters upon which there was no cross-examination. A third possible consequence will be to permit the witness to be recalled so that the breach can be remedied. One thing is clear. The rule is not simply to be ignored. The rule in Browne v Dunn has not been abrogated under the uniform Evidence Acts: Heaton v Luczka (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 3 March 1998) per Beazley JA. Indeed, s 46 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) specifically enables the recall of a witness where there has been a breach of the rule and therefore implies its continued existence. 48 In my view, the appropriate approach is to appoint the liquidator who has power to administer any trust assets (at least at the early states) (see Crest Realty Pty Ltd (No 2) (in liquidation) (1977) 1 NSWLR 664 and Wells v Wily [2004] NSWSC 607) , and the liquidator can approach the Court if any problems arise. I would not think it desirable to separate the function of the liquidator and any receiver of the trust assets in this case, and these functions should (at least initially) be fulfilled by the same person. The liquidator may apply to the Court if his appointment needs to be extended to that of receiver of the trust assets or if he needs further assistance. Equally, if any conflict arises because of the appointment of Mr McCann to other companies associated to APM, he can apply to seek directions on how to deal with that conflict: see ASIC v Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd (2006) 56 ACSR 646 at 652.