Osborne Metal Industries v Bullock (No.2) [2011] NSWSC 637

Osborne Metal Industries v Bullock (No.2) [2011] NSWSC 637

Even assuming the general journal extract was otherwise admissible as a business record, its evidentiary value was undermined because the source of Mr Willingale's understanding and the basis for the adjustments were not disclosed, Mr Willingale was not called to explain the document, and the plaintiffs had no opportunity to test the validity of what he did. Admitting the document as proof of the asserted matters would cause grave injustice to the plaintiffs on a significant aspect of their case, so it was rejected under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Hearing
Outcome
Tender of the general journal extract rejected; financial statements admitted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect']
['evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether extracts from the general journals of Osborne and Bullock showing an adjustment of $562,530.00 should be admitted into evidence.' 'Whether the document, even if admissible as a business record under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), should be rejected under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the general journal extract was otherwise admissible as a business record, its evidentiary value was undermined because the source of Mr Willingale's understanding and the basis for the adjustments were not disclosed, Mr Willingale was not called to explain the document, and the plaintiffs had no opportunity to test the validity of what he did. Admitting the document as proof of the asserted matters would cause grave injustice to the plaintiffs on a significant aspect of their case, so it was rejected under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Tender of the general journal extract rejected; financial statements admitted.

Orders

  • ['The general journal extract remains marked for identification 3.' 'The financial statements formerly marked for identification 4 are admitted as Exhibit DX10.']