Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1413

Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1413

Mr Kimber's evidence was not relevant to any pleaded issue. The plaintiffs did not plead that the Colin Winchester or the Sea Eye were unsuitable as search and rescue vessels, and although the pleading referred to replacement vessels, the plaintiffs did not plead that a failure to replace the Colin Winchester and Sea Eye was causative of the alleged damage. Statements or discussions at directions hearings could not expand the issues beyond the further amended statement of claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in Common Law Proceedings / Ruling on the Defendant's Objection to the Plaintiffs' Proposed Evidence of Paul Maxwell Kimber
Outcome
The defendant's relevance objection was upheld and Mr Kimber's evidence was excluded.
Legal Topics
['relevance of Evidence' 'pleadings Defining Issues' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay Objection' 'duty of Care' 'causation']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'negligence'] ['relevance of Evidence' 'pleadings Defining Issues' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay Objection' 'duty of Care' 'causation']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling in Common Law Proceedings / Ruling on the Defendant's Objection to the Plaintiffs' Proposed Evidence of Paul Maxwell Kimber

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed evidence of Paul Maxwell Kimber was relevant to any pleaded issue in the proceedings.' 'Whether, in the alternative, the proposed evidence should be excluded under s 135(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger that it may result in an undue waste of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kimber's evidence was not relevant to any pleaded issue. The plaintiffs did not plead that the Colin Winchester or the Sea Eye were unsuitable as search and rescue vessels, and although the pleading referred to replacement vessels, the plaintiffs did not plead that a failure to replace the Colin Winchester and Sea Eye was causative of the alleged damage. Statements or discussions at directions hearings could not expand the issues beyond the further amended statement of claim.

Court Disposition

The defendant's relevance objection was upheld and Mr Kimber's evidence was excluded.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mr Kimber is excluded.']