H M & O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram (No.4) [2011] NSWSC 566

H M & O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram (No.4) [2011] NSWSC 566

Paragraph 8 of Mr Rufford's affidavit and annexure B were rejected because annexure B was merely a summary and conclusory assertion unsupported by documentary, accounting, or other underlying material, rather than evidence founded on stated primary facts and reasoning. In any event, the Court would reject it under s135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its form and wholly unsubstantiated presentation would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendants. The last two sentences of paragraph 6 and paragraph 12 including annexure C were rejected for the same reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling; Objection to Admissibility of Evidence / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'objection to Affidavit Evidence' 'defective Form of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S135' 'unfair Prejudice']
['evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'objection to Affidavit Evidence' 'defective Form of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S135' 'unfair Prejudice']

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; Objection to Admissibility of Evidence / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraph 8 of Mr Glen John Rufford's affidavit and annexure B were admissible as evidence of the percentage of time staff spent performing duties for the second plaintiff." 'Whether the evidence should in any event be rejected under s135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) as unfairly prejudicial to the defendants.' 'Whether the last two sentences of paragraph 6 and paragraph 12 including annexure C of the same affidavit should be rejected for the same reasons.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 8 of Mr Rufford's affidavit and annexure B were rejected because annexure B was merely a summary and conclusory assertion unsupported by documentary, accounting, or other underlying material, rather than evidence founded on stated primary facts and reasoning. In any event, the Court would reject it under s135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its form and wholly unsubstantiated presentation would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendants. The last two sentences of paragraph 6 and paragraph 12 including annexure C were rejected for the same reasons.

Court Disposition

Evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ["Paragraph 8 of Mr Rufford's affidavit, including annexure B, is rejected." 'The last two sentences of paragraph 6 of the same affidavit are rejected.' 'Paragraph 12 of the same affidavit, including annexure C, is rejected.']