McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Limited (No 7) [2011] FCA 1136
The evidence is excluded because it is commentary on a funding proposal not in evidence, by an academic not giving evidence, and is of no probative value. Even if probative, exclusion is warranted under s 135(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
- Parties
- Applicant: Bruce McHugh; First Respondent: Australian Jockey Club Limited; Second Respondent: Victoria Racing Club Limited; Third Respondent: Australian Racing Board Limited; Fifth Respondent: Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Limited; Sixth Respondent: Australian Turf Club Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 September 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Tender of MFI 35 to MFI 38 rejected
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Probative Value, Exclusion of Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bruce McHugh
Applicant
Australian Jockey Club Limited
First Respondent
Victoria Racing Club Limited
Second Respondent
Australian Racing Board Limited
Third Respondent
Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Limited
Fifth Respondent
Australian Turf Club Limited
Sixth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether certain witness statements and documentary evidence (MFI 35 to MFI 38) should be admitted
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence is excluded because it is commentary on a funding proposal not in evidence, by an academic not giving evidence, and is of no probative value. Even if probative, exclusion is warranted under s 135(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
Court Disposition
Tender of MFI 35 to MFI 38 rejected
Orders
- The tender of MFI 35 to MFI 38 is rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment