Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Abbott (No 2) [2011] FCA 308

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Abbott (No 2) [2011] FCA 308

Because the asserted inconsistency was a serious matter affecting the credit of Mr Stuurstraat, fairness required admission of those parts of the AIRC transcript that provided context for PN 115 and assisted the Court to decide whether PN 115, properly understood, was inconsistent with his evidence in this Court. The Court admitted PN 114, PN 115, PN 116, PN 117, PN 119 and PN 121, but did not admit PN 112, PN 113, PN 118 or PN 120.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Admissibility of Evidence / Ruling as to Admissibility of Part of an AIRC Transcript
Outcome
Application to admit part of the AIRC transcript allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Transcript Evidence' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'cross Examination' 'witness Credit' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 45']
['evidence Law' 'industrial Relations'] ['admissibility of Transcript Evidence' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'cross Examination' 'witness Credit' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 45']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Admissibility of Evidence / Ruling as to Admissibility of Part of an AIRC Transcript

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether part of the transcript of evidence given by Mr Peter Stuurstraat in an Australian Industrial Relations Commission hearing should be admitted into evidence.' 'Whether paragraphs of the AIRC transcript beyond PN 115 should be admitted to provide context and assist in assessing whether PN 115 was inconsistent with evidence given in this Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the asserted inconsistency was a serious matter affecting the credit of Mr Stuurstraat, fairness required admission of those parts of the AIRC transcript that provided context for PN 115 and assisted the Court to decide whether PN 115, properly understood, was inconsistent with his evidence in this Court. The Court admitted PN 114, PN 115, PN 116, PN 117, PN 119 and PN 121, but did not admit PN 112, PN 113, PN 118 or PN 120.

Court Disposition

Application to admit part of the AIRC transcript allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['PN 114, PN 115, PN 116, PN 117, PN 119 and PN 121 of the AIRC transcript to be admitted into evidence.' 'PN 112, PN 113, PN 118 and PN 120 not admitted.' 'Counsel for the applicant invited to arrange for a suitably redacted version of the document to be produced for tender to the Court.']