Moran v Moran [No 1] [2000] NSWSC 149

Moran v Moran [No 1] [2000] NSWSC 149

The plaintiff may give evidence as to her conversation with Dr Bowen-James confined to statements concerning the defendants' perception of violence and advice on approach, as these are relevant to her state of mind and do not offend the hearsay rule, but more prejudicial commentary is excluded under s135 Evidence Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Admissibility
Outcome
Partial admissibility of evidence
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissibility of Conversations']
['evidence Law'] ['hearsay' 'admissibility of Conversations']

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

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether conversation between plaintiff and Dr Bowen-James is admissible as evidence or excluded under the hearsay rule and s135 Evidence Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff may give evidence as to her conversation with Dr Bowen-James confined to statements concerning the defendants' perception of violence and advice on approach, as these are relevant to her state of mind and do not offend the hearsay rule, but more prejudicial commentary is excluded under s135 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Partial admissibility of evidence

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff may give evidence limited to Dr Bowen-James's comments on the defendants' perception of violence and his advice on approach."]