Tang v Yu (evidence rulings) [2023] FCA 1541

Tang v Yu (evidence rulings) [2023] FCA 1541

The Tab 24 documents were business records of ASIC or the ASX, or records made for the purposes of the businesses of the companies, liquidators or administrators concerned, and s 69 did not require them to be records of the companies to which they were relevant. The liquidators' and administrators' reports were prepared to meet statutory reporting obligations to creditors and were not shown to be excluded by s 69(3)(a). However, the opinions in those reports were not admissible as proof of the facts asserted because there was no evidence establishing that the liquidators or administrators had specialised knowledge relevant to the particular opinions. Exhibit GT-17 lacked adequate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations Proceeding; Evidence Rulings / Rulings on the First Respondent's Objections to Evidence Sought to Be Tendered by the Applicant
Outcome
Suppression order made; first respondent's hearsay objection to the Tab 24 documents dismissed; first respondent's opinion evidence objection to the Tab 24 documents upheld; first respondent's objection to exhibit GT-17 upheld.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'business Records Exception' 'opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge Exception' 'suppression Orders']
['evidence' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['hearsay' 'business Records Exception' 'opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge Exception' 'suppression Orders']

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

Commercial and Corporations Proceeding; Evidence Rulings / Rulings on the First Respondent's Objections to Evidence Sought to Be Tendered by the Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tab 24 documents were inadmissible hearsay or admissible under the business records exception in s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' "Whether s 69(3)(a) excluded liquidators' and administrators' reports from the business records exception because they were prepared for proceedings or in contemplation of proceedings." 'Whether opinions expressed by liquidators or administrators in ASIC documents were admissible under the specialised knowledge exception in s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether exhibit GT-17, a balance sheet of Hyperbuild Unit Trust, was admissible as a business record or excluded as hearsay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tab 24 documents were business records of ASIC or the ASX, or records made for the purposes of the businesses of the companies, liquidators or administrators concerned, and s 69 did not require them to be records of the companies to which they were relevant. The liquidators' and administrators' reports were prepared to meet statutory reporting obligations to creditors and were not shown to be excluded by s 69(3)(a). However, the opinions in those reports were not admissible as proof of the facts asserted because there was no evidence establishing that the liquidators or administrators had specialised knowledge relevant to the particular opinions. Exhibit GT-17 lacked adequate...

Court Disposition

Suppression order made; first respondent's hearsay objection to the Tab 24 documents dismissed; first respondent's opinion evidence objection to the Tab 24 documents upheld; first respondent's objection to exhibit GT-17 upheld.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to ss 37AF(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), for a period of twenty years or until further order of the Court, in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, Exhibit JY-7 and pages 851-852 of the Court Book not be published or made available and...