Rich & Anor v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2005] NSWCA 233

Rich & Anor v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2005] NSWCA 233

Leave to appeal was refused because the case was not sufficiently exceptional to justify appellate intervention in interlocutory evidentiary rulings. The admissibility issues involved alternative bases under the Evidence Act and Corporations Act and depended on findings and inferences of fact and degree; any appellate ruling might not be final because ASIC could re-tender documents or call further evidence, and the Court could not presently assess the importance or weight of the documents or whether any error would be material to the final result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Evidentiary Rulings in Civil Proceedings Under the Corporations Act / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Austin J's Ruling That Categories of Documents Were Admissible
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Rulings' 'admissibility of Business Records' 'company Books' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'fragmentation of Trials']
['appeal' 'evidence' 'corporations'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Rulings' 'admissibility of Business Records' 'company Books' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'fragmentation of Trials']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Evidentiary Rulings in Civil Proceedings Under the Corporations Act / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Austin J's Ruling That Categories of Documents Were Admissible

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the trial judge's interlocutory ruling that nine categories of documents were admissible." 'Whether the evidentiary ruling constituted an order from which an appeal could be brought under s 101 of the Supreme Court Act.' 'Whether documents could be admitted as business records under s 69 of the Evidence Act or as books of the company under s 1305 of the Corporations Act.' 'The relationship between s 69 of the Evidence Act and Pt 3.3 of the Evidence Act, including s 79 dealing with opinions based on specialised knowledge.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the case was not sufficiently exceptional to justify appellate intervention in interlocutory evidentiary rulings. The admissibility issues involved alternative bases under the Evidence Act and Corporations Act and depended on findings and inferences of fact and degree; any appellate ruling might not be final because ASIC could re-tender documents or call further evidence, and the Court could not presently assess the importance or weight of the documents or whether any error would be material to the final result.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Summons dismissed with costs.']