LMI v Baulderstone [2001] NSWSC 688

LMI v Baulderstone [2001] NSWSC 688

Evidence of a conversation recorded in indirect speech is not inadmissible merely because of that form, and s.29(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 did not apply to the witness statement. However, because the conversation was important and the objection was conscientiously taken, the preferable course was to decline to allow paragraph 33 of Mr Wise's statement to be read and to give the defendants leave to adduce oral evidence from Mr Wise about the matter covered by that paragraph.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Evidence Objection in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / Judgment on Objection to Paragraph 33 of the Statement of Steven Wise Dated 12 April 2001
Outcome
Paragraph 33 of the witness statement was not to be read; leave was given to adduce oral evidence.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Witness Statement Evidence' 'evidence of Conversations in Indirect Speech' 'narrative Evidence' 'viva Voce Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Witness Statement Evidence' 'evidence of Conversations in Indirect Speech' 'narrative Evidence' 'viva Voce Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude 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

Evidence Objection in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / Judgment on Objection to Paragraph 33 of the Statement of Steven Wise Dated 12 April 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraph 33 of Mr Wise's witness statement, which recorded a conversation in indirect speech, was inadmissible because of its form." 'Whether s.29(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 applied to a witness statement affirmed by a witness at the start of testimony.' 'Whether the appropriate course was to exclude the paragraph or permit oral evidence about the conversation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of a conversation recorded in indirect speech is not inadmissible merely because of that form, and s.29(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 did not apply to the witness statement. However, because the conversation was important and the objection was conscientiously taken, the preferable course was to decline to allow paragraph 33 of Mr Wise's statement to be read and to give the defendants leave to adduce oral evidence from Mr Wise about the matter covered by that paragraph.

Court Disposition

Paragraph 33 of the witness statement was not to be read; leave was given to adduce oral evidence.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the defendants to adduce oral evidence from Mr Wise on the matter covered by paragraph 33 of his statement.' "Paragraph 33 of Mr Wise's statement is not to be read."]