HARTNETT v TRUSTEES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR THE DIOCESE OF WILCANNIA-FORBES (No 5) [2024] NSWSC 148

HARTNETT v TRUSTEES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR THE DIOCESE OF WILCANNIA-FORBES (No 5) [2024] NSWSC 148

Ms Dixon’s oral evidence in reply is admissible but must be limited to the topics raised in Sister Green’s evidence, including different accounts of the single incident affecting Ms Dixon and related occasions of discipline, as supported by the Evidence Act provisions.

Parties
Plaintiff: Albert John Hartnett; First Defendant: Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes; Second Defendant: Trustee of the Marist Brothers; Third Defendant: Mercy Support Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Admissibility of Evidence in Reply During Hearing
Outcome
Objection rejected, evidence admitted with limitation
Legal Topics
Evidence in Reply, Credibility Rule, Non Hearsay Purpose, Scope of Evidence
Evidence Evidence in Reply Credibility Rule Non Hearsay Purpose Scope of 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert John Hartnett

Plaintiff

Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes

First Defendant

Trustee of the Marist Brothers

Second Defendant

Mercy Support Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Admissibility of Evidence in Reply During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the admissible scope of Ms Margaret Dixon’s evidence in reply to Sister Green’s testimony?
  2. 2 Is the proposed evidence in reply relevant for purposes other than credibility, and does it meet admissibility requirements under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Dixon’s oral evidence in reply is admissible but must be limited to the topics raised in Sister Green’s evidence, including different accounts of the single incident affecting Ms Dixon and related occasions of discipline, as supported by the Evidence Act provisions.

Court Disposition

Objection rejected, evidence admitted with limitation

Orders

  • Reject the defendants' objection to Ms Margaret Dixon giving oral evidence in reply, subject to the scope of Ms Dixon's evidence being limited to topics raised in Sister Green's evidence