Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1331

Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1331

Mr Hawker's evidence about his knowledge in 1992 and 1993 of the processes described in the invoices was admissible because it could rationally affect, at least indirectly, the assessment of the time taken to perform relevant processes, a fact in issue. His unfamiliarity with the plaintiff company's specific internal processes went to cross-examination and assessment by the jury. Evidence of his company's current charges was inadmissible because the variables involved meant it could not rationally affect the assessment of whether the plaintiff company's charges six or seven years earlier were reasonable, and would introduce speculation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence on Voir Dire During Trial
Outcome
Evidence ruled admissible in part and inadmissible in part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'justification' 'reasonableness of Charges' 'voir Dire']
['defamation' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'justification' 'reasonableness of Charges' 'voir Dire']

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

Defamation / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence on Voir Dire During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from Mr Hawker as to his knowledge in 1992 and 1993 of the processes described in invoices was admissible under s55 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether evidence of Mr Hawker's company's current 1999 charges for similar processes was admissible as relevant to the reasonableness of the plaintiff company's 1992 and 1993 charges."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hawker's evidence about his knowledge in 1992 and 1993 of the processes described in the invoices was admissible because it could rationally affect, at least indirectly, the assessment of the time taken to perform relevant processes, a fact in issue. His unfamiliarity with the plaintiff company's specific internal processes went to cross-examination and assessment by the jury. Evidence of his company's current charges was inadmissible because the variables involved meant it could not rationally affect the assessment of whether the plaintiff company's charges six or seven years earlier were reasonable, and would introduce speculation.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled admissible in part and inadmissible in part.

Orders

  • ['The defendants may lead evidence from Mr Hawker as to his knowledge in 1992 and 1993 of the processes in the invoices as he understands them.' "The defendants may not lead evidence from Mr Hawker of his organisation's current charges for the subject work."]