CMC Cairns Pty Ltd v Macrossan & Lennon (No 2) [2005] QSC 337

State Reporting Bureau [koos] osc 33 T Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority f the Director, State Reporting Bureau, SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J Claim No 67 of 2002 CMC CAIRNS PTY LTD and TIM MACROSSAN and PAULA LENNON REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date: 10 November, 2005 Plaintiff Applicant/First Defendant Applicant/Second Defendant CAIRNS .. DATE 07/11/2005 JUDGMENT EARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal ffence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for leir protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those ategories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. 1 1 Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 3 -- HIS HONOUR: When the matter came on for hearing, Mr Ryall of counsel on behalf of the first and second defendants, sought leave to read and to file an affidavit of Robert James Grealy, which was sworn on 4 November 2005 and served on that same date. That affidavit, I am informed, goes to the issue of prejudice suffered by the first and second defendants. The reading of the affidavit is opposed by the plaintiffs on the basis that they have not been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and that its late delivery comes against a specific request by the plaintiff that the defendants give the plaintiffs notice of any matters which they say would give rise to an allegation of prejudice in these proceedings. During the course of argument I have been informed that direct prejudice has not been made out, but simply there has been a reference to documents which were not able to be found by the defendant's solicitor in the short time in which they made a search. There may be an opportunity for the documents to be found or for copies of them to be produced, but time has not permitted that to be done. So, prejudice on that basis remains rather as a chance, and not as something on which a proper allegation is founded. . In the affidavit I am told that there is also an assertion that some witnesses may not be available, but it seems that inquiries relating to the whereabouts of those witnesses are not yet complete either. 07112005 D.l T9 /AS M/T CNS1/2005 (Jones J) 1 10 20 30 40 50 2 JUDGMENT 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 07112005 D.l T9 /AS M/T CNS1/2005 (Jones J) With the potential value of that affidavit being left in that uncertain basis and coining as it does shortly before the hearing with no opportunity for the plaintiffs to assert to the contrary, the better course is to uphold the objection to the reading of the affidavit and direct that the affidavit will not be received on the hearing, if the hearing is to proceed today. 1 10 20 30 40 50 3 JUDGMENT 60 -- 3 of 3 --