Osborne Metal Industries v Bullock (No.3) [2011] NSWSC 640

The letter was tendered to prove the alleged agreement because it was consistent with Mr Jackson's evidence of that agreement. That showed that the evidence was credibility evidence, and no exception to the credibility rule was suggested. It was therefore prohibited by s 102 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and rejected.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 23 June 2011
Procedural Posture: Procedural and Other Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence / Ex Tempore Ruling During Hearing
Outcome: Tender rejected
Legal Topics: ['admissibility of Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 102']

['evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 102']

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

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether a letter written by Mr Roy Jackson to ASIC was admissible where it was tendered as relevant to whether there was an agreement that Bullock was to retain the benefit of Osborne's receivables or net receivables." 'Whether the letter was inadmissible credibility evidence under s 102 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

['The document contained at pages 2-296 and 2-297 of Exhibit PX6 is rejected.' 'The documents should be removed from the exhibit.']