Singh v Newridge Property Group Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 411

Singh v Newridge Property Group Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 411

The evidence was ruled inadmissible as the statutory requirements for the hearsay exceptions under ss 63 and 64 of the Evidence Act 1995 were not met due to insufficient reasonable steps taken to establish unavailability, lack of sufficient evidence to satisfy undue expense or impracticability, and unreasonable notice. Alternatively, the evidence was excluded under s 135(a) as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Objection to Evidence in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling/preliminary Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
Evidence ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'statutory Exceptions to Hearsay Rule' 'procedure for Adducing Hearsay Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'statutory Exceptions to Hearsay Rule' 'procedure for Adducing Hearsay 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Ruling on Objection to Evidence in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling/preliminary Evidentiary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether hearsay evidence is admissible under exceptions in the Evidence Act 1995 (ss 63 or 64)' 'Whether reasonable steps were taken to establish unavailability of a witness (s 63)' 'Whether it would cause undue expense, undue delay, or is not reasonably practicable to call the witness (s 64)' 'Whether reasonable notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence was given (s 67)' "Whether evidence should be excluded in the Court's discretion on grounds of unfair prejudice (s 135(a))"]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was ruled inadmissible as the statutory requirements for the hearsay exceptions under ss 63 and 64 of the Evidence Act 1995 were not met due to insufficient reasonable steps taken to establish unavailability, lack of sufficient evidence to satisfy undue expense or impracticability, and unreasonable notice. Alternatively, the evidence was excluded under s 135(a) as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['Objection to admissibility of evidence upheld.' "Evidence in paragraph 53 of Kulwant Singh's affidavit sworn on 3 December 2007 not admitted."]