Andonovski v Park-Tec Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor; Andonovski v East Realisations Pty Limited Formerly t/as Westbus Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1959

Andonovski v Park-Tec Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor; Andonovski v East Realisations Pty Limited Formerly t/as Westbus Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1959

MFI 7 was admissible because, despite objections about age, weight and lack of cross-examination, it was capable of establishing or assisting to establish the identity of the employer of persons working at Park-Tec on the day of the plaintiff's accident, a question left open by the Court of Appeal and relevant to duty and apportionment; Mr Vanthavong's belief about his employer did not determine admissibility because employment status is a mixed question of fact and law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Procedural and Other Ruling / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Document Tendered as MFI 7
Outcome
MFI 7 admitted as exhibit 1D16.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Document' 'relevance' 'identity of Employer' 'employment Status' 'apportionment']
['evidence' 'common Law'] ['admissibility of Document' 'relevance' 'identity of Employer' 'employment Status' 'apportionment']

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

Common Law; Procedural and Other Ruling / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Document Tendered as MFI 7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether MFI 7, an application for employment made by Mr Vanthavong, was relevant and admissible.' "Whether the document was capable of assisting to establish the identity of the employer of persons working at Park-Tec on the day of the plaintiff's accident." 'Whether the absence of cross-examination of Mr Vanthavong under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) affected admissibility of the document.']

Ratio Decidendi

MFI 7 was admissible because, despite objections about age, weight and lack of cross-examination, it was capable of establishing or assisting to establish the identity of the employer of persons working at Park-Tec on the day of the plaintiff's accident, a question left open by the Court of Appeal and relevant to duty and apportionment; Mr Vanthavong's belief about his employer did not determine admissibility because employment status is a mixed question of fact and law.

Court Disposition

MFI 7 admitted as exhibit 1D16.

Orders

  • ['I admit MFI 7 as exhibit 1D16']