Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1172

Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1172

The tender of the Letter and Statement was rejected because the Trustees did not establish that the unsigned Statement ever formed part of the records of Medical & Commercial Finance Corporation Ltd, and the Court was not prepared to infer that the representation about the Hunters Hill property was recorded in the course of or for the purposes of that company's business or that it was based on information directly or indirectly supplied by Mrs Cummins or another person with personal knowledge. The requirements of s 69(1)(b) and s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding; Ruling on Evidence / Tender of Documents as Business Records Under S 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)
Outcome
Tender rejected.
Legal Topics
['business Records Exception' 'hearsay' 'admissibility of Unsigned Statement of Assets and Liabilities' 'notice Under S 77 A(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)']
['evidence' 'bankruptcy'] ['business Records Exception' 'hearsay' 'admissibility of Unsigned Statement of Assets and Liabilities' 'notice Under S 77 A(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)']

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

Bankruptcy Proceeding; Ruling on Evidence / Tender of Documents as Business Records Under S 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the unsigned Statement of Assets and Liabilities was or had formed part of records belonging to or kept by a body in the course of or for the purposes of a business for s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the Statement contained a previous representation made in the course of or for the purposes of the relevant business.' 'Whether the representation that Mrs Cummins held only a half share in the Hunters Hill property was made on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by a person with, or reasonably supposed to have, personal knowledge of that fact.' 'Whether the tender should be rejected under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender of the Letter and Statement was rejected because the Trustees did not establish that the unsigned Statement ever formed part of the records of Medical & Commercial Finance Corporation Ltd, and the Court was not prepared to infer that the representation about the Hunters Hill property was recorded in the course of or for the purposes of that company's business or that it was based on information directly or indirectly supplied by Mrs Cummins or another person with personal knowledge. The requirements of s 69(1)(b) and s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected.

Orders

  • ['The tender of the Letter and Statement be rejected.']