Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 4) [2014] FCA 589

Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 4) [2014] FCA 589

A general objection that evidence admissible against other respondents is not admissible against the fourth respondent was insufficient to justify exclusion or a limitation under s 136. The discretion in s 136 is to be exercised selectively in specific cases of unfair prejudice or misleading or confusing evidence, not by upholding a blanket objection. In a judge-alone civil trial, any unfairness can be mitigated by the judge attributing appropriate weight to evidence, and the fourth respondent may make submissions about weight.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding; Evidence Objection / Ruling on General Objection to Applicants' Evidence
Outcome
The fourth respondent's general objection was disallowed.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Relevant Evidence' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice, Misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'judge Alone Civil Trial' 'defaulting Fiduciary and Equitable Compensation']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['admissibility of Relevant Evidence' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice, Misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'judge Alone Civil Trial' 'defaulting Fiduciary and Equitable Compensation']

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

Civil Proceeding; Evidence Objection / Ruling on General Objection to Applicants' Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence admissible against some respondents should be excluded or limited because it was said not to be admissible against the fourth respondent.' 'Whether the Court should exercise discretion under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to limit the use of evidence on the basis of potential unfair prejudice, or because it might be misleading or confusing.']

Ratio Decidendi

A general objection that evidence admissible against other respondents is not admissible against the fourth respondent was insufficient to justify exclusion or a limitation under s 136. The discretion in s 136 is to be exercised selectively in specific cases of unfair prejudice or misleading or confusing evidence, not by upholding a blanket objection. In a judge-alone civil trial, any unfairness can be mitigated by the judge attributing appropriate weight to evidence, and the fourth respondent may make submissions about weight.

Court Disposition

The fourth respondent's general objection was disallowed.

Orders

  • ['The general objection of the fourth respondent to evidence of the applicants as being "not admissible against the fourth respondent" is disallowed.']