Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1411

Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1411

The portion of Ms Radovanovic’s statement recounting double hearsay as to what Mr Jardine was told by the navy is inadmissible because it is not first-hand hearsay, does not fall within any exception under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and is led to prove the truth of the facts asserted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Evidentiary Ruling / Interlocutory
Outcome
Objection to evidence upheld; disputed hearsay evidence ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['evidence'] ['hearsay' 'admissibility of 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

Evidentiary Ruling / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether part of Ms Radovanovic's statement constitutes inadmissible hearsay under s. 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)" 'Whether the evidence falls within a hearsay exception or is for a non-hearsay purpose under s. 60']

Ratio Decidendi

The portion of Ms Radovanovic’s statement recounting double hearsay as to what Mr Jardine was told by the navy is inadmissible because it is not first-hand hearsay, does not fall within any exception under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and is led to prove the truth of the facts asserted.

Court Disposition

Objection to evidence upheld; disputed hearsay evidence ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['That part of para. 18 of the statement of Ms Radovanovic is not admissible, and is rejected.']