Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MacDonald [2008] NSWSC 995

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MacDonald [2008] NSWSC 995

In civil proceedings with multiple defendants, evidence relevant to any issue in the proceeding is admissible against all parties under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995; the discretion to exclude or limit evidence pursuant to s 135 and s 136 should not be exercised merely because the evidence is irrelevant to some parties, unless the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or time waste.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: Peter Donald MacDonald; Second Defendant: Peter James Shafron; Third Defendant: Phillip Graham Morley; Fourth Defendant: Michael Robert Brown; Fifth Defendant: Michael John Gillfillan; Sixth Defendant: Meredith Hellicar; Seventh Defendant: Martin Koffel; Eighth Defendant: Geoffrey Frederick O'Brien; Ninth Defendant: Gregory James Terry; Tenth Defendant: Peter John Willcox; Eleventh Defendant: ABN 60 Pty Ltd; Twelfth Defendant: James Hardie Industries NV
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Admissibility
Outcome
Discretions not exercised; applications for exclusion or restriction of evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Admissibility, Relevance, Multi Party Proceedings, Discretion to Exclude Evidence, Civil Procedure
Evidence Admissibility Relevance Multi Party Proceedings Discretion to Exclude Evidence Civil Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Peter Donald MacDonald

First Defendant

Peter James Shafron

Second Defendant

Phillip Graham Morley

Third Defendant

Michael Robert Brown

Fourth Defendant

Michael John Gillfillan

Fifth Defendant

Meredith Hellicar

Sixth Defendant

Martin Koffel

Seventh Defendant

Geoffrey Frederick O'Brien

Eighth Defendant

Gregory James Terry

Ninth Defendant

Peter John Willcox

Tenth Defendant

ABN 60 Pty Ltd

Eleventh Defendant

James Hardie Industries NV

Twelfth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence relevant to one defendant is admissible against all defendants in multi-party proceedings
  2. 2 Whether discretion under s 135 and s 136 Evidence Act 1995 should be exercised to exclude or limit use of evidence which is irrelevant to issues joined with a specific party

Ratio Decidendi

In civil proceedings with multiple defendants, evidence relevant to any issue in the proceeding is admissible against all parties under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995; the discretion to exclude or limit evidence pursuant to s 135 and s 136 should not be exercised merely because the evidence is irrelevant to some parties, unless the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or time waste.

Court Disposition

Discretions not exercised; applications for exclusion or restriction of evidence refused.