Dudzinski v Aitken & Anor [1999] QCA 419

1 99.419 COURT OF APPEAL de JERSEY CJ DAVIES JA JONES J Appeal No 8899 of 1998 WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI Appellant and ANDREW AITKEN First Respondent and ABLE SUPPORTING AND TRAINING AGENCY Second Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 05/10/99 JUDGMENT -- 1 of 4 -- 051099 T5/BP17 M/T COA240/99 2 JUDGMENT THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appellant appeals against orders dismissing two notices of motion, those filed on 17 June 1998 and 26 August 1998 and an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of those proceedings. The appellant unsuccessfully sought from a Chamber Judge orders: (1) That the first respondent and his solicitor be cross- examined concerning a document contained in the respondent's affidavit of documents and upon the first respondent's affidavit of 13 February 1998; (2) That the first respondent and his solicitor be ordered to correct that document and affidavit; (3) That the respondents produce a better particularised defence; (4) That the respondents give better discovery of documents especially as to the curriculum vitae and expert experience of the first respondent; (5) That the first respondent and his solicitor be treated as hostile witnesses; (6) That the respondents' solicitor and barrister be disqualified from conducting the case and (7) That costs be reserved. -- 2 of 4 -- 051099 T5/BP17 M/T COA240/99 3 JUDGMENT The learned Chamber Judge gave a reasoned judgment which has now been challenged by the appellant through very comprehensive and extensive written submissions which he has today orally supplemented. Because of the extensiveness of the written material, the Court limited in the exercise of its discretion the extent of the oral supplementation although I note that Mr Dudzinski did in fact speak in excess of half an hour in the context of the 20 minute limitation. In any event it is plain that the Court is amply informed about the basis of his contentions, noting also that for a time at least in his oral presentation, Mr Dudzinski was reading from his written submission in response to the respondents' outline. We have also, I should say, received an outline of submissions from the respondents. We had a substantial opportunity before coming to Court to consider all of this material and we have of course in addition reviewed it in the course of this morning's oral presentations. There is in my view no merit in the challenges now raised by the appellant. The reasons given by the learned Chamber Judge really need no embellishment. They were valid and substantial reasons for refusing the relief sought by the appellant and they find any arguably necessary elaboration in the respondents' outline which -- 3 of 4 -- 051099 T5/BP17 M/T COA240/99 4 JUDGMENT has been placed before us for the purposes of these appeal proceedings. I would dismiss the appeal and order the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed. DAVIES JA: I agree. JONES J: I also agree. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Those are the orders of the Court. ----- -- 4 of 4 --