ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 471

ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 471

The Miller & Green Report, Ernst & Young Report, and the e-mail correspondence between Mr Weston and Mr Howell-Davies are admissible as evidence. The reports qualify as business records kept for the purposes of One.Tel's business under s 69 of the Evidence Act and as books required to be kept by s 286 and admissible under s 1305 of the Corporations Act. The correspondence, while not company records, is admissible as a business record under s 69. The court will not exercise its discretion under ss 135 or 136 of the Evidence Act to exclude or limit the use of any document; criticisms of weight and hearsay content go to the probative value and not to admissibility at this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
All documents admitted into evidence without limitation
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Documents' 'business Records' 'hearsay' 'corporate Records' 'exercise of Judicial Discretion Under Evidence Act']
['evidence' 'corporations'] ['admissibility of Documents' 'business Records' 'hearsay' 'corporate Records' 'exercise of Judicial Discretion Under Evidence Act']

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

Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Miller & Green Report, the Ernst & Young Report, and e-mail correspondence between Mr Weston and Mr Howell-Davies are admissible in evidence despite containing hearsay representations' 'Whether the documents are admissible as books kept under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1305 and/or as business records under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 69' 'Whether the exercise of discretion under ss 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act should exclude or limit the use of these documents']

Ratio Decidendi

The Miller & Green Report, Ernst & Young Report, and the e-mail correspondence between Mr Weston and Mr Howell-Davies are admissible as evidence. The reports qualify as business records kept for the purposes of One.Tel's business under s 69 of the Evidence Act and as books required to be kept by s 286 and admissible under s 1305 of the Corporations Act. The correspondence, while not company records, is admissible as a business record under s 69. The court will not exercise its discretion under ss 135 or 136 of the Evidence Act to exclude or limit the use of any document; criticisms of weight and hearsay content go to the probative value and not to admissibility at this stage.

Court Disposition

All documents admitted into evidence without limitation

Orders

  • ['Miller & Green Report admitted into evidence' 'Ernst & Young Report admitted into evidence' 'E-mail correspondence between Mr Weston and Mr Howell-Davies admitted into evidence' 'No limitation or exclusion under ss 135 or 136 of the Evidence Act']