Peter Vitek & Anor v Estate Homes Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1805

Statements made by Mr Taheri in Mrs Taheri's presence, which were not contradicted by her, are admissions by Mrs Taheri and are admissible against her, not being caught by the hearsay rule per s 81(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties: First Plaintiff: Peter Vitek; Second Plaintiff: Shoshanna Vitek; Third Defendant: Veeda Taheri; First Defendant: Estate Homes Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 30 October 2013
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Application / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome: Portions in paragraphs 29-100 of Mr O'Donnell's affidavit admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics: Admissibility of Admissions, Hearsay Rule, Unfair Prejudice

Evidence Admissibility of Admissions Hearsay Rule 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Peter Vitek

First Plaintiff

Shoshanna Vitek

Second Plaintiff

Veeda Taheri

Third Defendant

Estate Homes Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

1 Whether statements made by Mr Taheri in Mrs Taheri's presence are admissible against her as admissions
2 Whether the hearsay rule excludes Mr O'Donnell's evidence regarding conversations involving Mr and Mrs Taheri
3 Whether the evidence should be excluded or limited as unfairly prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Portions in paragraphs 29-100 of Mr O'Donnell's affidavit admitted into evidence.

Orders

Admit the portions in paragraphs 29-100 of Mr O'Donnell's affidavit to which objection was taken