Australian Medic-Care Company Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Limited (ACN 008 204 635) (No 4) [2008] FCA 1038

Australian Medic-Care Company Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Limited (ACN 008 204 635) (No 4) [2008] FCA 1038

Representations in the business records were inadmissible under s 69(2) because they were prepared or obtained in contemplation of legal proceedings against third parties, triggering s 69(3), but were admissible for the limited purpose of evidencing the fact of investigation and informing beliefs/actions, with use restricted under s 136.

Parties
Applicant/first Cross Respondent: Australian Medic-Care Company Ltd; Respondent/cross Claimant: Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Limited; Second Cross Respondent: Kenneth Kin Wah Keung
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Pending Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Representations in business records ruled inadmissible under s 69(2) but admissible for limited purposes; admitted evidence use restricted under s 136.
Legal Topics
Business Records Exception, Hearsay Rule, Exclusion and Limitation of Evidence
Evidence Business Records Exception Hearsay Rule Exclusion and Limitation of 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Medic-Care Company Ltd

Applicant/first Cross Respondent

Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Limited

Respondent/cross Claimant

Kenneth Kin Wah Keung

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Evidence Ruling in Pending Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether business records are admissible as hearsay exceptions under s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether representations were prepared or obtained in contemplation of legal proceedings under s 69(3)
  3. 3 Whether documents should be excluded under s 135, or their use limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Representations in the business records were inadmissible under s 69(2) because they were prepared or obtained in contemplation of legal proceedings against third parties, triggering s 69(3), but were admissible for the limited purpose of evidencing the fact of investigation and informing beliefs/actions, with use restricted under s 136.

Court Disposition

Representations in business records ruled inadmissible under s 69(2) but admissible for limited purposes; admitted evidence use restricted under s 136.

Orders

  • The representations contained in the business records to be found at pp 385 to 400 of the applicant's court book are not admissible under s 69(2) of the Evidence Act but are admissible for the limited purposes specified in these reasons.