Liu v The Age Company & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1176

Liu v The Age Company & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1176

Direct evidence from Ms Liu regarding the alleged forgeries was admitted in preference to hearsay evidence provided on information and belief, as the opportunity to prove forgery directly was critical and in line with the overriding purpose in s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Hearsay evidence from the defendants regarding their sources was inadmissible because s 75 of the Evidence Act required identification of the ultimate source, which the defendants declined to provide. The application for adjournment was granted to ensure procedural fairness by enabling both sides to deal with direct evidence. The evidence of Chris Masters was excluded as its probative value was slight and did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment and Evidentiary Rulings
Outcome
Adjournment granted; evidentiary rulings made; parts of affidavits ruled inadmissible; Masters' affidavit excluded.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' "journalists' Sources" 'admissibility of Hearsay' 'adjournment']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['preliminary Discovery' "journalists' Sources" 'admissibility of Hearsay' 'adjournment']

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

Application for Preliminary Discovery / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment and Evidentiary Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an application for preliminary discovery to identify journalists' sources is an interlocutory proceeding" 'Whether evidence on information and belief from undisclosed sources is admissible under s 75 of the Evidence Act' 'Appropriateness of granting an adjournment to allow direct evidence' 'Whether evidence from journalists about source confidentiality has sufficient probative value']

Ratio Decidendi

Direct evidence from Ms Liu regarding the alleged forgeries was admitted in preference to hearsay evidence provided on information and belief, as the opportunity to prove forgery directly was critical and in line with the overriding purpose in s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Hearsay evidence from the defendants regarding their sources was inadmissible because s 75 of the Evidence Act required identification of the ultimate source, which the defendants declined to provide. The application for adjournment was granted to ensure procedural fairness by enabling both sides to deal with direct evidence. The evidence of Chris Masters was excluded as its probative value was slight and did...

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; evidentiary rulings made; parts of affidavits ruled inadmissible; Masters' affidavit excluded.

Orders

  • ['The hearing is adjourned part heard.' "Paragraphs 35(b), (c), (d), (g), (h), and (i) and paragraph 35(f) of Mr Bartlett's affidavit are rejected as inadmissible." 'The affidavit of Chris Masters is excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act.']