Commonwealth Bank v Iinvest (in Liquidation) (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 431
The duplicate bank letter purporting to be a copy of the original was in sufficient form to be received in evidence and was relevant because the parties' claims, including the bank's possession and debt claims and the cross-claim for unconscionability relief, required examination of the circumstances of their dealings over a period of years.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 January 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Procedural and Other Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence / Tender of Documents at Hearing
- Outcome
- Document admitted
- Legal Topics
- ['admissibility' 'authenticity of Documents' 'duplicate Bank Records' 'business Records' 'best Evidence Rule' 'relevance' 'mortgage Possession Proceedings' 'statutory Unconscionability']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence / Tender of Documents at Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a duplicate bank letter concerning a discounted bill should be admitted despite objections as to authenticity.' 'Whether the document was relevant to the issues in the possession, debt and unconscionability proceedings.']
Ratio Decidendi
The duplicate bank letter purporting to be a copy of the original was in sufficient form to be received in evidence and was relevant because the parties' claims, including the bank's possession and debt claims and the cross-claim for unconscionability relief, required examination of the circumstances of their dealings over a period of years.
Court Disposition
Document admitted
Orders
- ['The document is admitted as Exhibit 2.505.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment