Category: Evidence
-
Advance rulings on evidence
in EvidenceThe Owners – Strata Plan No 90189 v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1382 As Stevenson J observed in Sydney Attractions Group Pty Ltd v Schulman [2012] NSWSC 951 at [5][6]: It is useful to consider the circumstances in which courts have acceded to an application to make a ruling under section 192A, and where courts have declined…
-
Jones v Dunkel: when the inference is available
in EvidenceAmaca Pty Limited (Under NSW Administered Winding Up) v Roseanne Cleary as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Fortunato (aka Frank) Gatt [2022] NSWCA 151 The mode of reasoning suggested by Jones v Dunkel is directed to fact finding. Even where the preconditions to drawing the inference are satisfied, a trier of fact…
-
Unchallenged expert evidence
in EvidenceAmaca Pty Limited (Under NSW Administered Winding Up) v Roseanne Cleary as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Fortunato (aka Frank) Gatt [2022] NSWCA 151 1. In an appeal restricted to points or errors of law, there are significant limitations imposed on the appellate court in reviewing findings of primary fact…
-
Proving fraud
in EvidenceMusa v Alzreaiawi [2021] NSWCA 12 It is not in dispute that the primary judge correctly held that s 140(2) of the Evidence Act applied to the proceedings with the consequence that when determining whether her Honour was satisfied of Mr Musa’s case on the balance of probabilities, she was to take into account from a non-exhaustive list of matters:…
-
Rusu was incorrectly decided
in EvidenceGregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245 As I have stated, the trial judge also concluded, relying on the decision in Rusu (National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309; [1999] NSWSC 539), that s 48(1) of the Evidence Act merely prescribes the means of adducing evidence of the contents of a document and leaves untouched questions of authenticity. It is not…
-
State of mind and implied waiver of client legal privilege
when is a party’s state of mind sufficiently in issue for legal advice potentially informing that state of mind to be disclosable as having lost privilege by implied waiver
-
The use of photographic evidence: Taitoko v R
in EvidenceThe principles governing the use of photographic evidence were summarised in Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43 at [80]-[81]: True it is that care must be taken when photographs are deployed. I regard it as self-evident that photographs (and, especially, the reproductions of photographs in appeal books) can contain obvious distortions of distance, colour and shape. They can also contain non-obvious distortions…
-
Legal professional privilege: dominant versus secondary purpose
in EvidenceDOUGLAS v MORGAN [2019] SASCFC 76 Legal professional privilege 41 Legal professional privilege “is a rule of substantive law which may be availed of by a person to resist the giving of information or the production of documents which would reveal communications between a client and his or her lawyer made for the dominant purpose…
-
Admissions: weight?
in EvidenceEVIDENCE – whether respondent had made admission as to appellants’ right to immediate possession – probative value of admission made– whether inference should be drawn from respondent’s failure to give evidence at trial
-
Assumptions made by experts – proof of the truth of statements made and objections
[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”] [et_pb_row admin_label=”row”] [et_pb_column type=”4_4″] [et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]