Osborne Metal Industries v Bullock (No.1) [2011] NSWSC 636

Osborne Metal Industries v Bullock (No.1) [2011] NSWSC 636

Leave was refused and the document tender rejected because the witness was not available to be cross-examined about the prior consistent statement, the document was temporally distant from the event, and was not referred to in evidence. The cumulative effect of factors warranted refusal of leave under s 108 and general discretion under s 135.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Osborne Metal Industries (NSW) Pty Ltd ACN 003 284 928; Second Plaintiff: Brooker Holdings Pty Limited ACN 003 912 258; First Defendant: Bullock MFG Pty Ltd ACN 001 199 677; Second Defendant: Roy James Jackson; Third Defendant: Rodney John Jackson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Objection to Tender of Document
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, Exceptions to the Credibility Rule, Prior Consistent Statement, Allegations of Fabrication, Cross Examination
Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule Exceptions to the Credibility Rule Prior Consistent Statement Allegations of Fabrication Cross Examination

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Osborne Metal Industries (NSW) Pty Ltd ACN 003 284 928

First Plaintiff

Brooker Holdings Pty Limited ACN 003 912 258

Second Plaintiff

Bullock MFG Pty Ltd ACN 001 199 677

First Defendant

Roy James Jackson

Second Defendant

Rodney John Jackson

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Objection to Tender of Document

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tendered document is admissible under hearsay or credibility rule exceptions
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to adduce evidence of a prior consistent statement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused and the document tender rejected because the witness was not available to be cross-examined about the prior consistent statement, the document was temporally distant from the event, and was not referred to in evidence. The cumulative effect of factors warranted refusal of leave under s 108 and general discretion under s 135.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • Tender of the email and attached notes is rejected and marked MFI 5