Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd (formerly known as Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd) [1998] FCA 923

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd (formerly known as Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd) [1998] FCA 923

The exclusion to the hearsay rule in par 64(2)(b) did not apply because it was reasonably practicable to call Messrs Woollard, Rogan and Shead, and requiring them to give evidence in the ordinary way would not cause undue expense or undue delay. The attached material was voluminous and multifarious and contained much material that was irrelevant, in improper form, or otherwise objectionable, so attempting to use it under the notices would itself cause undue expense and undue delay. The notices also failed to comply with Evidence Regulation 5 because they did not identify the substance of the particular previous representations relied on and did not state the substance of all other...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding for Pecuniary Penalties Under S 76 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) for Alleged Contraventions of S 45 of That Act, Conveniently Conceived of as Collusive Tendering / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling on Notices Purportedly Given Under S 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)
Outcome
The Court ruled that the exclusion to the hearsay rule in par 64(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) does not apply to the three notices given by the applicant to the first respondent on 10 July 1998.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'previous Representations' 'notices Under S 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'undue Expense or Undue Delay' 'reasonable Practicability of Calling Witnesses' 'collusive Tendering']
['evidence' 'trade Practices' 'civil Procedure'] ['hearsay' 'previous Representations' 'notices Under S 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'undue Expense or Undue Delay' 'reasonable Practicability of Calling Witnesses' 'collusive Tendering']

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

Civil Proceeding for Pecuniary Penalties Under S 76 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) for Alleged Contraventions of S 45 of That Act, Conveniently Conceived of as Collusive Tendering / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling on Notices Purportedly Given Under S 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearsay rule exclusion in par 64(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applied to documents attached to three notices given under s 67 of that Act.' 'Whether calling Messrs Woollard, Rogan and Shead to give evidence would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable.' 'Whether the notices sufficiently stated the substance of the evidence of previous representations sought to be adduced.' 'Whether the notices sufficiently stated the substance of all other relevant representations made by the persons who made those previous representations, so far as known to the notifying party.']

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion to the hearsay rule in par 64(2)(b) did not apply because it was reasonably practicable to call Messrs Woollard, Rogan and Shead, and requiring them to give evidence in the ordinary way would not cause undue expense or undue delay. The attached material was voluminous and multifarious and contained much material that was irrelevant, in improper form, or otherwise objectionable, so attempting to use it under the notices would itself cause undue expense and undue delay. The notices also failed to comply with Evidence Regulation 5 because they did not identify the substance of the particular previous representations relied on and did not state the substance of all other...

Court Disposition

The Court ruled that the exclusion to the hearsay rule in par 64(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) does not apply to the three notices given by the applicant to the first respondent on 10 July 1998.

Orders

  • ['The exclusion to the hearsay rule provided for in par 64(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) does not apply in respect of the three notices given by the applicant to the first respondent on 10 July 1998, purportedly pursuant to s 67 of that Act.']