She specifically rejected a suggestion that the distance was either 2, 2.4 or 2.5 metres stating: know how that could happen, because the line “I don’t doesn’t change.” Ms evidence continued that apart from doing ground inspections McNaught’s she would be at the ground for other reasons, usually five nights per week, and in 2009 she had lived directly opposite the northern end of the ground. Ms McNaught agreed that the boundary line varied somewhat on the eastern side of Brook Reserve as the ground slanted up towards the playground. She did not agree that there was variance in the distance between the boundary line and the fence on the western side of the ground. Ms McNaught was not aware of any complaint or remonstration about the boundary line being too narrow in 2009 and had first learned of this allegation the end of “towards last year.” Ms McNaught had made enquiries in the week prior to the trial commencing and obtained a video of the game taken on 20 June 2009. This seniors’ included a passage where Ms son, who was officiating as a McNaught’s boundary umpire, had retrieved a ball from over the boundary line in the forward pocket area near where Mr incident had occurred. Hale’s After seeing the video shortly prior to the trial Ms McNaught had asked her son to pace out the distance between the line as it is presently and the fence. This she stated was four and a half to five metres, which was to that “similar” observed by her in 2009. Ms McNaught was cross-examined by Mr Shandell QC, who with Mr Sparrow appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and the following evidence emerged: The ground inspection, certified by both Ms McNaught and the opposing signed off that the playing environment was fit for play, but team’s manager, the inspection was not done with the two walking together.
She specifically rejected a suggestion that the distance was either 2, 2.4 or 2.5 metres stating: “I don’t know how that could happen, because the line doesn’t change.” Ms McNaught’s evidence continued that apart from doing ground inspections she would be at the ground for other reasons, usually five nights per week, and in 2009 she had lived directly opposite the northern end of the ground. Ms McNaught agreed that the boundary line varied somewhat on the eastern side of Brook Reserve as the ground slanted up towards the playground. She did not agree that there was variance in the distance between the boundary line and the fence on the western side of the ground. Ms McNaught was not aware of any complaint or remonstration about the boundary line being too narrow in 2009 and had first learned of this allegation “towards the end of last year.” Ms McNaught had made enquiries in the week prior to the trial commencing and obtained a video of the seniors’ game taken on 20 June 2009. This included a passage where Ms McNaught’s son, who was officiating as a boundary umpire, had retrieved a ball from over the boundary line in the forward pocket area near where Mr Hale’s incident had occurred. After seeing the video shortly prior to the trial Ms McNaught had asked her son to pace out the distance between the line as it is presently and the fence. This she stated was four and a half to five metres, which was “similar” to that observed by her in 2009. Ms McNaught was cross-examined by Mr Shandell QC, who with Mr Sparrow appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and the following evidence emerged: The ground inspection, certified by both Ms McNaught and the opposing team’s manager, signed off that the playing environment was fit for play, but the inspection was not done with the two walking together.
halejudgment.docx