Orcher v Bowcliff Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 172

Orcher v Bowcliff Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 172

Certain questions and answers in the ERISP interview with the second defendant are admissible as evidence of admissions against the interests of Bowcliff Pty Ltd t/as The Bridge Hotel, by virtue of sections 81 and 87 of the Evidence Act 1995, as they relate to matters within the scope of the second defendant’s employment, including instructions by supervisory employees. Only specified portions are admissible; others are excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidence Admissibility Application
Outcome
ERISP admitted in part
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'hearsay' 'employee Authority' 'vicarious Liability' 'scope of Employment']
['evidence'] ['admissions' 'hearsay' 'employee Authority' 'vicarious Liability' 'scope of Employment']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidence Admissibility Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether parts of the ERISP interview are admissible as evidence of admissions against interest' 'Whether representations made by employees in police interviews are admissible against the employer under ss 81 and 87 of the Evidence Act 1995']

Ratio Decidendi

Certain questions and answers in the ERISP interview with the second defendant are admissible as evidence of admissions against the interests of Bowcliff Pty Ltd t/as The Bridge Hotel, by virtue of sections 81 and 87 of the Evidence Act 1995, as they relate to matters within the scope of the second defendant’s employment, including instructions by supervisory employees. Only specified portions are admissible; others are excluded.

Court Disposition

ERISP admitted in part

Orders

  • ['Questions and answers 206 to 208, 213 to 214, 341 to 344, 108 to 124, 177 to 191, 236 to 238, 459 to 478, 638 to 650 and 654 to 656 are admissible as evidence of admissions against the first defendant in accordance with ss 81 and 87 of the Evidence Act 1995.']