Paul Duggan is a commercial litigation barrister based in Melbourne, Australia.
Since 1996 he has advised and appeared in most types of business-to-business and business-to-customer disputes – commercial and domestic building matters, commercial and retail leasing disputes, insolvencies, franchises, partnerships, insurance, professional negligence, sales of land, Corporation Act matters and trade practices disputes to name a few. Although Paul has represented governments, major public companies, insurers, Lloyds syndicates and private individuals his clients are predominantly small and medium enterprises contemplating or engaged in litigation in the Victorian Supreme Court, County Court or VCAT.
Paul also practises in the federal jurisdictions and interstate.
Paul’s clerk is Gordon & Jackson.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Act 2003.
Paul Duggan 
Hi Paul,
I had another look at your blog.
I enjoy your writing style – it is clear that you enjoy writing.
A thought about Jones v Dunkel, two actually (but I cannot remember the details):
1 – the decision is about 50 pages long but the critical part is about one paragraph – Heerey J was angry with one barrister who printed off the whole case.
2 – there is a reference somewhere in the ALJ at least 10 years ago to the facts of the case.
It was a car accident in which everybody was called to give evidence except the driver of one car.
Apparently the reason why he was not called was that he was in prison for an unrelated driving offence, so the explanation for failure to call him might have been a bit embarrassing.
Best wishes,
Peter Agardy
Embarrassing indeed.
Except query whether the fact of imprisonment is, of itself, a real impediment to a witness being called to give evidence. My hunch is that it can’t be – after all prisoners testify in their own and other people’s criminal trials all the time.
And the fact of the driver’s subsequent imprisonment for an unrelated offence getting into evidence via cross-examination? It’s probably inadmissible for irrelevance and even, if admitted, it can’t be probative.
So maybe the absent drivers’s evidence would have been unhelpful for reasons more substantive than his striped pyjamas and handcuffs?
Regards,
P D