Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.26) [2003] NSWSC 1045

Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.26) [2003] NSWSC 1045

The tender was rejected because Table 4 was prima facie hearsay, was not an official government publication, compiled information outside the author's direct knowledge without revealing the compilation method, and the plaintiffs sought to tender it without calling the author or source materials; it was not shown that proving the figures by primary records, ABS data, royalty returns, or related evidence was impracticable or would cause significant expense or delay, and the evidence was not of a kind very likely to be correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Common Law Division, Professional Negligence List Proceeding / Judgment No.26 – Ruling on Tender of Table 4 in Oakes Submission Document
Outcome
Tender rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995, S144' 'supreme Court Act 1970, S82' 'dispensing With Rules of Evidence' 'tender of Compilation Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995, S144' 'supreme Court Act 1970, S82' 'dispensing With Rules of Evidence' 'tender of Compilation Evidence']

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

Common Law Division, Professional Negligence List Proceeding / Judgment No.26 – Ruling on Tender of Table 4 in Oakes Submission Document

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Table 4, a compilation of peat production figures from ABS returns and NSW Department of Mineral Resources royalty returns, should be admitted despite being prima facie hearsay.' 'Whether s144 of the Evidence Act 1995 or s82(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 justified admitting or dispensing with proof of Table 4.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender was rejected because Table 4 was prima facie hearsay, was not an official government publication, compiled information outside the author's direct knowledge without revealing the compilation method, and the plaintiffs sought to tender it without calling the author or source materials; it was not shown that proving the figures by primary records, ABS data, royalty returns, or related evidence was impracticable or would cause significant expense or delay, and the evidence was not of a kind very likely to be correct.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected.

Orders

  • ['The tender of Table 4 in the document marked 11 for identification was rejected.']