Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 8) [2021] FCA 365

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 8) [2021] FCA 365

MFI-P was admissible because, read with the meeting agenda, emails and Mrs Watson's evidence, it was a Country Care business record of the 15 July 2014 DVA meeting attended by Mrs Watson, Mr Hogan and Mr Harrison, satisfying s 69(1). The two key passages about significant price disparities and market prices were records of representations made by either the author or another attendee who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted facts, satisfying s 69(2), even though the exact author or speaker of each representation was not identified. The passages were also admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of showing what was said in the presence of Mr...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Federal Crime and Related Proceedings; Criminal Prosecution / Ruling During Trial on Re Tender and Admissibility of File Note MFI P
Outcome
Objections rejected; MFI-P admitted.
Legal Topics
['business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'admissibility of File Note Produced Under S 155 Notice' 'personal Knowledge Under S 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'non Hearsay Use for State of Mind' 'unfair Prejudice and Probative Value Under S 137' 'alleged Cartel Provision Concerning DVA Contracted Prices']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'admissibility of File Note Produced Under S 155 Notice' 'personal Knowledge Under S 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'non Hearsay Use for State of Mind' 'unfair Prejudice and Probative Value Under S 137' 'alleged Cartel Provision Concerning DVA Contracted Prices']

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

Federal Crime and Related Proceedings; Criminal Prosecution / Ruling During Trial on Re Tender and Admissibility of File Note MFI P

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether MFI-P was a business record satisfying s 69(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the representations in MFI-P satisfied s 69(2) where the specific author or speaker of each representation could not be identified.' 'Whether MFI-P was admissible for a non-hearsay purpose as evidence going to the state of mind of Mr Hogan and Mr Harrison.' 'Whether MFI-P should be excluded under s 137 because the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value.' 'Whether s 60 would operate to permit hearsay use once MFI-P was admitted for a non-hearsay purpose.']

Ratio Decidendi

MFI-P was admissible because, read with the meeting agenda, emails and Mrs Watson's evidence, it was a Country Care business record of the 15 July 2014 DVA meeting attended by Mrs Watson, Mr Hogan and Mr Harrison, satisfying s 69(1). The two key passages about significant price disparities and market prices were records of representations made by either the author or another attendee who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted facts, satisfying s 69(2), even though the exact author or speaker of each representation was not identified. The passages were also admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of showing what was said in the presence of Mr...

Court Disposition

Objections rejected; MFI-P admitted.

Orders

  • ['MFI-P is admissible.' 'The two passages identified at [42] are admissible for a hearsay purpose under s 69(2) to the extent that they contain asserted facts.' 'The grounds for exclusion under s 137 are not made good.' 'MFI-P will be admitted as Exhibit 1P tab 313.']