Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 6) [2012] NSWSC 1476

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 6) [2012] NSWSC 1476

It was appropriate to make advance rulings because doing so would assist the parties to know which of the voluminous lay evidence could be relied on, prepare the case, identify witnesses for cross-examination, clarify matters relevant to expert evidence, potentially affect the length of trial, and assist an upcoming mediation. Section 192A was not confined to expert evidence and should be broadly construed consistently with efficient case management and the overriding purpose. The Court then admitted, rejected, or limited the challenged evidence according to relevance, probative value, hearsay, expertise, specificity, remoteness, and permissible non-hearsay purposes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Defendants' Application Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 for Advance Evidentiary Rulings on Lay Evidence Before the Hearing
Outcome
Defendants' application for advance evidentiary rulings was acceded to; rulings were made admitting, rejecting, or limiting specified parts of the Plaintiffs' lay evidence.
Legal Topics
['advance Rulings' 'lay Evidence' 'hearsay' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'expert Evidence' 'case Management']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['advance Rulings' 'lay Evidence' 'hearsay' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'expert Evidence' 'case Management']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Defendants' Application Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 for Advance Evidentiary Rulings on Lay Evidence Before the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make advance rulings under s 192A Evidence Act 1995 before the hearing on objections to lay evidence.' 'Whether advance rulings under s 192A should ordinarily be limited to expert evidence.' 'Whether categories of lay evidence should be rejected for hearsay, lack of relevance, lack of probative value, lack of expertise, vagueness, remoteness, or lack of specificity.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to make advance rulings because doing so would assist the parties to know which of the voluminous lay evidence could be relied on, prepare the case, identify witnesses for cross-examination, clarify matters relevant to expert evidence, potentially affect the length of trial, and assist an upcoming mediation. Section 192A was not confined to expert evidence and should be broadly construed consistently with efficient case management and the overriding purpose. The Court then admitted, rejected, or limited the challenged evidence according to relevance, probative value, hearsay, expertise, specificity, remoteness, and permissible non-hearsay purposes.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for advance evidentiary rulings was acceded to; rulings were made admitting, rejecting, or limiting specified parts of the Plaintiffs' lay evidence.

Orders

  • ['Evidentiary rulings as provided in the reasons for judgment.' 'If there is a lack of clarity from any ruling, the parties are at liberty to re-list the matter in the new term to deal with the difficulties.']