Wright v Optus Administration & Anor (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1717

Wright v Optus Administration & Anor (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1717

The statement was admissible because it was reasonably open to find that Ms Hedges was an employee of Optus and that her representations about the events of 15 March related to matters within the scope of her employment, namely the training and supervision of trainees. The representations concerning the unfolding events, the concern caused by the assailant's appearance and behaviour, and the decision to involve the plaintiff were adverse to the first defendant's interests on issues including foreseeability, duty, breach and remoteness, and any remaining parts of the statement were admissible as context necessary to understand those admissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Admissibility of Evidence in Personal Injury Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling During Hearing on Tender of Witness Statement
Outcome
The statement of Ms Hedges was admitted as exhibit B.
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'hearsay Exception' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Part 3.4' 'employee Representations' 'scope of Employment' 'duty of Care' 'mental Harm']
['evidence' 'tort' 'personal Injury'] ['admissions' 'hearsay Exception' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Part 3.4' 'employee Representations' 'scope of Employment' 'duty of Care' 'mental Harm']

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 Concerning Admissibility of Evidence in Personal Injury Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling During Hearing on Tender of Witness Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement of Natalie Hedges was admissible as containing admissions under Part 3.4 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the conditions in s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) were satisfied because Ms Hedges was an employee and her representations related to matters within the scope of her employment.' 'Whether the statement contained admissions or representations to which it was reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand admissions within s 81(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement was admissible because it was reasonably open to find that Ms Hedges was an employee of Optus and that her representations about the events of 15 March related to matters within the scope of her employment, namely the training and supervision of trainees. The representations concerning the unfolding events, the concern caused by the assailant's appearance and behaviour, and the decision to involve the plaintiff were adverse to the first defendant's interests on issues including foreseeability, duty, breach and remoteness, and any remaining parts of the statement were admissible as context necessary to understand those admissions.

Court Disposition

The statement of Ms Hedges was admitted as exhibit B.

Orders

  • ['The statement of Ms Hedges dated 15th March 2011 is admitted as exhibit B.']