Browne v dunn - Study guides, Class notes & Summaries

What is the exam looking for? - Correct Answer a) identify the general principle behind the ethical/ bar rule and the reason for it; b) answer the question asked and identify any legislative provision or rule applicable; c) apply the content of the ethical/ Bar rule (or at least to state its key components) in addition to stating the rule; and d) identify where an active role in pursuing an ethical course is required of the barrister whether that be vis a vis the solicitor, the client, t...

Bailey v Commissioner of Taxation - Part 15 Particulars - Purpose is to confine issues, refine pleadings and avoid surprise. General Steel Industries Inc v Comm. for Railways - UCPR 13.4 - no cause of action "so obviously untenable that it could not possibly succeed" R v Kneebone - Duty of the Crown to call all witness available who may be able to assist the court SH v R - Competency - s 13 A witness incompetent to give sworn evidence may be competent to give unsworn evidence if 13(5) is...

Bale and Anor v Mills Breach of rule in Browne v Dunn - failing to put matters to witness in cross-examination - consequences Facts: Bale were lawyers for Mills. Bale settled his PI case for Mills. Mills alleged he was pressured and given false info which led him to settle his PI claim. Bale was not cross-examined in relation to certain matters and was given no opportunity to explain his actions - Breach of rule in Browne v Dunn. Held: · Cannot make adverse credibility findings against a w...

Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 - Adverse credibility findings made against a solicitor in circumstances where allegations of dishonesty had not been put to him in cross-examination. No complaint or submission, however, had been put to the trial judge that the rule in Browne v Dunn had not been complied with. On appeal held there could be no waiver because of the overriding duty upon a judge to ensure a fair trial, including ensuring a witness is treated fairly where the judge is asked to mak...

Jones v Dunkel Evidence (Civil) Adverse inferences may be drawn from the unexplained failure of a party to adduce particular evidence where such evidence would be reasonably expected to shed light on a matter. Case about man killed by a truck driven by D. D fails to appear as W. Corresponds to ss 9 (EAC doesnt affect CL) and 20 (failed to provide evidence) of tge EAC. Cases where judge can comment should be rare and exceptional - ie Weissensteiner Bale v Mills Ethics. Treatment of witness...

********************************ACHEIVED A 1ST******************************** Full notes including: 1. the break down of key principles 2. key cases with detailed facts and analysis/ application 3. all relevant legislation