(Re: Lawrence) BHP Billiton Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2003] NSWDDT 17

(Re: Lawrence) BHP Billiton Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2003] NSWDDT 17

The statement was not admissible under s 63 because the plaintiff was not shown to be unavailable: he had already given evidence and been cross-examined, and BHP had taken no steps to compel him to give further evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Evidentiary Ruling on Tender of Plaintiff's Statement
Outcome
Tender rejected.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'unavailability of Witness' 'admissibility of Previous Representation' 'asbestos Exposure']
['evidence' 'dust Diseases'] ['hearsay' 'unavailability of Witness' 'admissibility of Previous Representation' 'asbestos Exposure']

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

Cross Claim in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Evidentiary Ruling on Tender of Plaintiff's Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's statement dated 12 September 2002 was admissible under s 63 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the plaintiff was not available to give evidence for the purposes of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement was not admissible under s 63 because the plaintiff was not shown to be unavailable: he had already given evidence and been cross-examined, and BHP had taken no steps to compel him to give further evidence.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected.

Orders

  • ['The tender is rejected.' 'The statement of the plaintiff bearing date 12 September 2002 is marked 1 for identification.']