Boyce, Carmel Madonna v Cafred Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 479

Boyce, Carmel Madonna v Cafred Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 479

Evidence that other agents, or even the same agent, of a respondent made similar representations to other purchasers on other occasions about whether land was flood-prone lacked the strong probative force required for admissibility as similar fact evidence under Perry and Sutton. In any event, its reception would seriously multiply the issues and prolong the trial without a corresponding contribution to the issue whether Mr Chester made the representation alleged on the particular occasion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 Concerning Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Payment of a Deposit for Purchase of Land / Extempore Reasons for Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The applicant's proposed similar fact evidence was not admitted.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'representations About Land Flooding']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'representations About Land Flooding']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 Concerning Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Payment of a Deposit for Purchase of Land / Extempore Reasons for Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to lead evidence of representations allegedly made by other agents of the respondents to other purchasers of land in the same geographical location.' 'Whether that evidence was admissible as similar fact evidence in a proceeding alleging misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974.' 'Whether, if legally admissible, the evidence should nevertheless be excluded in the exercise of discretion because it would multiply issues and prolong the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence that other agents, or even the same agent, of a respondent made similar representations to other purchasers on other occasions about whether land was flood-prone lacked the strong probative force required for admissibility as similar fact evidence under Perry and Sutton. In any event, its reception would seriously multiply the issues and prolong the trial without a corresponding contribution to the issue whether Mr Chester made the representation alleged on the particular occasion.

Court Disposition

The applicant's proposed similar fact evidence was not admitted.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of David James Burrell, Helen Michelle Burrell and Leslie Anne Hendrick sought to be led by the applicant not be admitted.']