Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1674

Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1674

Exhibit VD2 was not controversial, and the whole of Exhibit VD1 was admissible because the other emails in the exchange provided the context in which the alleged admission in the 4.40 pm email was given or made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Exhibits During Hearing
Outcome
The whole of Exhibit VD1 was admitted as Exhibit 1D7, and Exhibit VD2 was admitted as Exhibit 1D8.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Email Thread' 'admissions' 'tender of Exhibits']
['evidence'] ['admissibility of Email Thread' 'admissions' 'tender of Exhibits']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Exhibits During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Exhibit VD1, an email exchange between solicitors about the plaintiff's use of Panadeine Forte, was admissible where one email was said to contain an admission by the plaintiff's solicitor." 'Whether the whole email exchange was admissible to provide context for the alleged admission.']

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit VD2 was not controversial, and the whole of Exhibit VD1 was admissible because the other emails in the exchange provided the context in which the alleged admission in the 4.40 pm email was given or made.

Court Disposition

The whole of Exhibit VD1 was admitted as Exhibit 1D7, and Exhibit VD2 was admitted as Exhibit 1D8.

Orders

  • ['I admit the whole of Exhibit VD1 as Exhibit 1D7, and Exhibit VD2 as Exhibit 1D8.']