Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 370

Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 370

The emails at pages 1325-1328 were excluded because they were plainly prepared for the purpose of searching for documents to answer the subpoena and therefore fell within s 69(3). The documents at pages 1329-1331 and 1332-1335 did not owe their existence to those emails and were produced in answer to a subpoena within scope. Their admissibility was not defeated merely because authenticity had not been otherwise proved by the third party production, since authenticity is not itself a ground of admissibility and provenance may be inferred consistently with binding authority.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Patents and Associated Statutes / Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Documents in Fuchs' Tender Bundle Produced by Glencore on Subpoena
Outcome
Pages 1329-1331 and pages 1332-1335 of Fuchs' tender bundle were admitted into evidence; the tender of emails at pages 1325-1328 was rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Business Records' 'hearsay Exception' 'documents Produced on Subpoena' 'authenticity of Documents' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) Ss 58 and 69']
['evidence' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['admissibility of Business Records' 'hearsay Exception' 'documents Produced on Subpoena' 'authenticity of Documents' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) Ss 58 and 69']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Patents and Associated Statutes / Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Documents in Fuchs' Tender Bundle Produced by Glencore on Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents produced by a third party in answer to a subpoena were admissible in evidence.' 'Whether the business records exception in s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) was excluded by s 69(3) because representations were prepared or obtained for the purpose of conducting, or for or in contemplation of or in connection with, an Australian proceeding.' 'Whether authenticity was a ground of admissibility for the two remaining documents produced on subpoena.']

Ratio Decidendi

The emails at pages 1325-1328 were excluded because they were plainly prepared for the purpose of searching for documents to answer the subpoena and therefore fell within s 69(3). The documents at pages 1329-1331 and 1332-1335 did not owe their existence to those emails and were produced in answer to a subpoena within scope. Their admissibility was not defeated merely because authenticity had not been otherwise proved by the third party production, since authenticity is not itself a ground of admissibility and provenance may be inferred consistently with binding authority.

Court Disposition

Pages 1329-1331 and pages 1332-1335 of Fuchs' tender bundle were admitted into evidence; the tender of emails at pages 1325-1328 was rejected.

Orders

  • ["Pages 1329-1331 and pages 1332-1335 of Fuchs' tender bundle are admitted into evidence."]