Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Andreasen [2005] NSWSC 579

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Andreasen [2005] NSWSC 579

The evidence of Mr Renshaw's conversation with Toby of Toby's Estate was relevant because it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of what was said in the contractual conversations with the plaintiff about permanent umbrellas. It was not excluded by the credibility rule because it was tendered for a non-credibility purpose. It was not tendency evidence within s 97 because the statement in one negotiation for a particular contract did not amount to proof of a general tendency. Other evidence about dealings with other persons or subjective intent was inadmissible because it was too vague or concerned internal mental processes rather than external manifestations of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Evidence in a Contractual Dispute / Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence During Hearing
Outcome
Evidence admitted in part and rejected in part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility and Relevance' 'credibility Rule' 'tendency Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'objective Assessment of Contractual Terms' 'notice for Tendency Evidence']
['evidence' 'contract Law'] ['admissibility and Relevance' 'credibility Rule' 'tendency Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'objective Assessment of Contractual Terms' 'notice for Tendency Evidence']

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 Concerning Evidence in a Contractual Dispute / Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether affidavit evidence about negotiations with other coffee suppliers was relevant to determining which version of contractual conversations was more probable.' 'Whether the evidence was excluded by the credibility rule in s 102 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the admissible evidence was tendency evidence within s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'If the evidence was tendency evidence, whether it had significant probative value and whether notice should be dispensed with.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Mr Renshaw's conversation with Toby of Toby's Estate was relevant because it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of what was said in the contractual conversations with the plaintiff about permanent umbrellas. It was not excluded by the credibility rule because it was tendered for a non-credibility purpose. It was not tendency evidence within s 97 because the statement in one negotiation for a particular contract did not amount to proof of a general tendency. Other evidence about dealings with other persons or subjective intent was inadmissible because it was too vague or concerned internal mental processes rather than external manifestations of...

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted in part and rejected in part.

Orders

  • ['In the affidavit of Juan Renshaw, the whole of paragraph 5 was admitted except the last eight words, "because he could not offer us permanent umbrellas".' "In paragraph 6 of Juan Renshaw's affidavit, the first sentence was admitted and the balance was rejected." "Paragraph 5 of Maia Andreasen's affidavit was...