Supetina Pty Ltd & Anor v. Lombok Pty Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 94

Supetina Pty Ltd & Anor v. Lombok Pty Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 94

The valuation report was held inadmissible because, although it would be admissible under the State Act, s.7C of the Evidence Act 1905 (Com) excludes such documents when they are prepared in contemplation of litigation, and s.109 of the Constitution renders the inconsistent State law invalid to that extent. Therefore, the report could not be admitted into evidence.

Parties
First Applicant: SUPETINA PTY LTD; Second Applicant: AVIONNE JOY VINCENT; First Respondent: LOMBOK PTY LTD; Second Respondent: KENNETH CYRIL GUY; Third Respondent: JOHN RONALD BRYANT
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Evidence Application / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed; evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Business Records, Inconsistency of Commonwealth and State Laws, Expert Opinion Evidence
Evidence Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Business Records Inconsistency of Commonwealth and State Laws Expert Opinion 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUPETINA PTY LTD

First Applicant

AVIONNE JOY VINCENT

Second Applicant

LOMBOK PTY LTD

First Respondent

KENNETH CYRIL GUY

Second Respondent

JOHN RONALD BRYANT

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Evidence Application / Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valuation report obtained for judicial proceedings is admissible as evidence under the relevant Evidence Acts
  2. 2 Whether there is inconsistency between Commonwealth and State legislation in relation to admissibility
  3. 3 Whether the Commonwealth Act prevails rendering the State Act invalid to the extent of inconsistency

Ratio Decidendi

The valuation report was held inadmissible because, although it would be admissible under the State Act, s.7C of the Evidence Act 1905 (Com) excludes such documents when they are prepared in contemplation of litigation, and s.109 of the Constitution renders the inconsistent State law invalid to that extent. Therefore, the report could not be admitted into evidence.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; evidence excluded

Orders

  • The valuation report prepared by Mr Harold Foster and sought to be admitted into evidence by the applicants not be so admitted.