In the matter of Prismex Technologies Pty Limited; Colin Lindsay Taggert v John Matyear [2013] NSWSC 278

In the matter of Prismex Technologies Pty Limited; Colin Lindsay Taggert v John Matyear [2013] NSWSC 278

The affidavit was allowed to be read because the redactions could operate only to the respondents' detriment and did not prejudice the applicants, the challenged conversation was not tendered for the truth of its contents and was therefore not excluded by the hearsay rule, and the applicants were already on notice of and investigating the costs contention so late service on or about 31 January 2013 did not unfairly prejudice them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in the Equity Division Corporations List / Objection to Affidavit Evidence at Hearing
Outcome
Affidavit in question does not unfairly prejudice the applicants and is read into evidence.
Legal Topics
['affidavits' 'late Service of Affidavit' 'hearsay' 'redaction of Exhibits' 'unfair Prejudice']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['affidavits' 'late Service of Affidavit' 'hearsay' 'redaction of Exhibits' 'unfair Prejudice']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling in the Equity Division Corporations List / Objection to Affidavit Evidence at Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether late service of Mr Farrar's affidavit sworn 31 January 2013 unfairly prejudiced the applicants." 'Whether paragraph 6 of the affidavit was excluded by the hearsay rule.' 'Whether partial redaction of invoices exhibited to the affidavit rendered the affidavit or exhibits inadmissible.']

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit was allowed to be read because the redactions could operate only to the respondents' detriment and did not prejudice the applicants, the challenged conversation was not tendered for the truth of its contents and was therefore not excluded by the hearsay rule, and the applicants were already on notice of and investigating the costs contention so late service on or about 31 January 2013 did not unfairly prejudice them.

Court Disposition

Affidavit in question does not unfairly prejudice the applicants and is read into evidence.

Orders

  • ["Mr Farrar's affidavit sworn 31 January 2013 is allowed to be read."]