Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1333

Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1333

The excerpt of the letter from the Australian Chinese Daily, read aloud by the plaintiff, cannot be used as probative evidence of the truth of the complaint, as it is inadmissible hearsay and does not fall within the business records exception under s69 of the Evidence Act 1995; therefore, it is irrelevant to any issue in the case and cannot support the defendants' justification defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application; Mid Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['justification Defence' 'hearsay' 'business Records' 'use of Documentary Evidence' 'browne V Dunn Rule']
['defamation' 'evidence Law'] ['justification Defence' 'hearsay' 'business Records' 'use of Documentary Evidence' 'browne V Dunn Rule']

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

Defamation / Interlocutory Application; Mid Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a portion of a letter read aloud by the plaintiff can be used by the defendants as probative evidence for the defence of justification' 'Admissibility of a business letter as evidence under s69 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether such evidence is hearsay and if it falls within an exception']

Ratio Decidendi

The excerpt of the letter from the Australian Chinese Daily, read aloud by the plaintiff, cannot be used as probative evidence of the truth of the complaint, as it is inadmissible hearsay and does not fall within the business records exception under s69 of the Evidence Act 1995; therefore, it is irrelevant to any issue in the case and cannot support the defendants' justification defence.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mr Assaf at page 447 line 50, reading aloud a portion of the letter from the Australian Chinese Daily, cannot be used as probative in any way of the truth of the complaint and is irrelevant to any issue in the case.']