Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 31

Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 31

The representations by Foong are not admissible against Geitonia or Mr Gertos as their probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice stemming from the inability to cross-examine Foong, and must be excluded under s 137 (and s 135(a)) of the Evidence Act; however, the documents coming into possession of a prosecution witness in late November 2011 are admissible as being relevant to the defence of necessity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling in Criminal Trial
Outcome
The representations are not admitted against Geitonia or Mr Gertos under ss 135(a), 137 of the Evidence Act 1995; documents obtained by the prosecution witness in late November 2011 are admissible as relevant to the defence of necessity.
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'hearsay Exception' 'probative Value and Prejudice' 'defence of Necessity' 'authority of Agent']
['evidence Law' 'criminal Law' 'planning and Environment Law'] ['admissions' 'hearsay Exception' 'probative Value and Prejudice' 'defence of Necessity' 'authority of Agent']

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

Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling in Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations made by Foong are admissible as admissions under s 87(1)(a) or (c) of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether the Court should refuse to admit them under ss 135(a) or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether documents coming into possession of a prosecution witness in late November 2011 are relevant to the defence of necessity']

Ratio Decidendi

The representations by Foong are not admissible against Geitonia or Mr Gertos as their probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice stemming from the inability to cross-examine Foong, and must be excluded under s 137 (and s 135(a)) of the Evidence Act; however, the documents coming into possession of a prosecution witness in late November 2011 are admissible as being relevant to the defence of necessity.

Court Disposition

The representations are not admitted against Geitonia or Mr Gertos under ss 135(a), 137 of the Evidence Act 1995; documents obtained by the prosecution witness in late November 2011 are admissible as relevant to the defence of necessity.

Orders

  • ['Representations are admissible under s 87(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Court refuses to admit the representations under ss 135(a) and 137 against Geitonia and Mr Gertos.' 'Documents coming into possession of a prosecution witness in late November 2011 are admissible as relevant to the defence of necessity.']