Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu [2003] NSWSC 236

Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu [2003] NSWSC 236

The letter could not be admitted because its authenticity was not proved: there was no proof of Mr Tsang's signature, no proof of authorship, and no proof that the letter was what it purported to be. Section 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not dispense with that requirement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Voir Dire as to Admissibility of an Affidavit and Tender of a Letter Dated 3 March 2003
Outcome
Tender of the letter rejected.
Legal Topics
['documentary Evidence' 'hearsay in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'authenticity of Documents' 'business Records']
['evidence'] ['documentary Evidence' 'hearsay in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'authenticity of Documents' 'business Records']

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 Proceeding / Voir Dire as to Admissibility of an Affidavit and Tender of a Letter Dated 3 March 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a letter purporting to be from Mr Tsang was admissible on the voir dire under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether s 75 dispensed with the need to prove that the tendered letter was what it purported to be.']

Ratio Decidendi

The letter could not be admitted because its authenticity was not proved: there was no proof of Mr Tsang's signature, no proof of authorship, and no proof that the letter was what it purported to be. Section 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not dispense with that requirement.

Court Disposition

Tender of the letter rejected.

Orders

  • ['The letter dated 3 March 2003 is rejected and marked for identification 7.']