Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 58
The tender was rejected because the substance of the proposed evidence was that Ms Chel had previously answered the interrogatory "not to my knowledge", and she did not deny that fact but accepted it; therefore the preconditions for rebutting her evidence on a credit matter under s 106 were not satisfied.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Procedural and Other Ruling / Application to Tender Evidence During Cross Examination
- Outcome
- Application to tender evidence of Plaintiff's answer to interrogatory is rejected
- Legal Topics
- ['adducing Evidence Solely Concerned With Credit' 'evidence Act, S 106' 'interrogatories' 'cross Examination']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling / Application to Tender Evidence During Cross Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the defendants could tender the interrogatory and Ms Chel's answer as evidence solely affecting her credit." 'Whether the preconditions in Evidence Act, s 106 were satisfied where Ms Chel accepted that she had given the answer to the interrogatory.']
Ratio Decidendi
The tender was rejected because the substance of the proposed evidence was that Ms Chel had previously answered the interrogatory "not to my knowledge", and she did not deny that fact but accepted it; therefore the preconditions for rebutting her evidence on a credit matter under s 106 were not satisfied.
Court Disposition
Application to tender evidence of Plaintiff's answer to interrogatory is rejected
Orders
- ["Application to tender evidence of Plaintiff's answer to interrogatory is rejected"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment