Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2010] NSWSC 1187

Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2010] NSWSC 1187

Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit were rejected because the evidence did not establish that the document whose contents were sought to be proved was unavailable within the Evidence Act definition, and because the late service of the evidence caused prejudice by denying the opposing party the opportunity to search relevant records and adduce evidence in response.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling / Ex Tempore Ruling on Objection to Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit rejected; the affidavit otherwise read.
Legal Topics
['admissibility and Relevance' 'secondary Evidence of Documents' 'unavailability of Documents' 'late Service of Evidence' 'prejudice']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility and Relevance' 'secondary Evidence of Documents' 'unavailability of Documents' 'late Service of Evidence' 'prejudice']

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 Ruling / Ex Tempore Ruling on Objection to Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit of Mire Anevski should be admitted as relevant evidence.' 'Whether evidence of the contents of a document could be admitted under (NSW) Evidence Act 1995, s 48(4)(b).' 'Whether unavailability of the document had been established.' 'Whether late service of the evidence caused prejudice justifying rejection.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit were rejected because the evidence did not establish that the document whose contents were sought to be proved was unavailable within the Evidence Act definition, and because the late service of the evidence caused prejudice by denying the opposing party the opportunity to search relevant records and adduce evidence in response.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit rejected; the affidavit otherwise read.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit of Mire Anevski sworn 15 August 2010 are rejected.' 'The affidavit is otherwise read.']