Morrison v Peacock and Roslyndale Shipping Company Pty Ltd [1999] NSWLEC 230

Morrison v Peacock and Roslyndale Shipping Company Pty Ltd [1999] NSWLEC 230

The prosecutor had filed and served evidence to make out a case under s 8(1), the defendants had raised a defence under s 8(2)(b) and filed affidavits, Mr Burge's first affidavit had been filed and served in response, and the defendants had filed further affidavits in reply; in those circumstances the evidence should be regarded as closed and Mr Burge's second affidavit dated 3 May 1999 should not be read.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under the Marine Pollution Act 1987 / Hearing of Objection to Admissibility of Further Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
The second affidavit of Mr Burge dated 3 May 1999 was not permitted to be read.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Further Evidence' 'affidavit Evidence' 'marine Pollution Prosecution' 'defence Under S 8(2)(b) of the Marine Pollution Act 1987']
['evidence' 'environmental Law'] ['admissibility of Further Evidence' 'affidavit Evidence' 'marine Pollution Prosecution' 'defence Under S 8(2)(b) of the Marine Pollution Act 1987']

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

Prosecution Under the Marine Pollution Act 1987 / Hearing of Objection to Admissibility of Further Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second affidavit of Mr Burge dated 3 May 1999 may be read over the defence's objection."]

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutor had filed and served evidence to make out a case under s 8(1), the defendants had raised a defence under s 8(2)(b) and filed affidavits, Mr Burge's first affidavit had been filed and served in response, and the defendants had filed further affidavits in reply; in those circumstances the evidence should be regarded as closed and Mr Burge's second affidavit dated 3 May 1999 should not be read.

Court Disposition

The second affidavit of Mr Burge dated 3 May 1999 was not permitted to be read.

Orders

  • ['The affidavit of Mr Burge of 3 May 1999 should not be read.']