SMA Solar Technology AG v Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1017

Because the Court could take into account the difficulties arising from the printout, including any illegibility and contextual issues, the Court was not satisfied that the document was unfairly prejudicial or misleading and confusing under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 September 2012
Procedural Posture: Evidence Admission of Evidence / Objection to Receipt Into Evidence of a Printout of a Website
Outcome: The second respondent's objection was rejected and the document behind Tab 51 was allowed.
Legal Topics: ['admission of Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'web Page Printout' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence']

['evidence'] ['admission of Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'web Page Printout' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Evidence Admission of Evidence / Objection to Receipt Into Evidence of a Printout of a Website

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether a poorly printed web page printout behind Tab 51 should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as unfairly prejudicial to the second respondent or as misleading or confusing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

The second respondent's objection was rejected and the document behind Tab 51 was allowed.

Orders

['I allow the document behind Tab 51.']