Jacara Pty Ltd v Auto-Bake Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 417

Jacara Pty Ltd v Auto-Bake Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 417

The proposed similar fact evidence was not admissible. Evidence about pre-development foot traffic was irrelevant because Perpetual admitted that such representations had been made. The remaining alleged representations to other tenants differed materially from the representations alleged by the applicant and did not reveal striking similarities, unusual features, underlying unity, a system, pattern of behaviour or business practice. The evidence therefore did not have significant probative value. In any event, its probative value would have been substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time, given the likely expansion of the trial into subsidiary factual disputes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Proceeding for Relief Under Part VI of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Arising Out of Alleged Misleading and Deceptive Representations Before Entry Into a Lease of a Shop in the Parkmore Shopping Centre / Applicant's Motion for an Order Admitting Similar Fact Evidence at the Hearing
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'relevance' 'tendency Evidence' 'significant Probative Value' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['evidence' 'trade Practices' 'leasing'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'relevance' 'tendency Evidence' 'significant Probative Value' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Proceeding for Relief Under Part VI of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Arising Out of Alleged Misleading and Deceptive Representations Before Entry Into a Lease of a Shop in the Parkmore Shopping Centre / Applicant's Motion for an Order Admitting Similar Fact Evidence at the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the affidavits containing alleged similar fact evidence were relevant under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the proposed evidence had significant probative value for the purposes of s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the evidence should in any event be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed similar fact evidence was not admissible. Evidence about pre-development foot traffic was irrelevant because Perpetual admitted that such representations had been made. The remaining alleged representations to other tenants differed materially from the representations alleged by the applicant and did not reveal striking similarities, unusual features, underlying unity, a system, pattern of behaviour or business practice. The evidence therefore did not have significant probative value. In any event, its probative value would have been substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time, given the likely expansion of the trial into subsidiary factual disputes.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The motion notice of which was filed on 1 March 1999 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the motion."]