Metlife Insurance Ltd v Visy Board Pty Ltd & 25 ors [2007] NSWSC 1415

Metlife Insurance Ltd v Visy Board Pty Ltd & 25 ors [2007] NSWSC 1415

It is reasonably open, on the material provided, to draw the necessary findings of authority and relevance for the documents in question at this stage. None of the objections are sufficient to exclude the evidence sought to be admitted, either on relevance or prejudice grounds.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Metlife Insurance Limited; 1st Defendant: Visy Board Pty Limited; 2nd Defendant: Visy Paper Pty Limited; 3rd Defendant: Visy Board Superannuation Pty Limited; 4th Defendant: Arpad Kozma; 5th Defendant: Colin Frewen; 6th Defendant: Reginald De Livera; 7th Defendant: Stephen Smith; 8th Defendant: Florian Karwacki; 9th Defendant: Sylvia Kleinman; 10th Defendant: Oscar Marconi; 11th Defendant: Petru Suciu; 12th Defendant: Thomas Hall; 13th Defendant: Mark Williams; 14th Defendant: Concetta Tedesco; 15th Defendant: Don Rakoci; 16th Defendant: Slako Gorguc; 17th Defendant: Shane Rogers; 18th Defendant: Maurice Rafidi; 19th Defendant: Edward Denko; 20th Defendant: Maria Drago; 21st Defendant: Milenco Baloi; 22nd Defendant: Cane Mickovski; 23rd Defendant: Eyup Turkoglu; 24th Defendant: Ugur Arslan; 25th Defendant: Gregory Sabitino; 26th Defendant: Ramadan Salievski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Rectification Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Tenders admitted
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Relevance, Authority of Agent, Rectification, Prejudicial Effect
Evidence Equity Admissibility of Evidence Relevance Authority of Agent Rectification Prejudicial Effect

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metlife Insurance Limited

Plaintiff

Visy Board Pty Limited

1st Defendant

Visy Paper Pty Limited

2nd Defendant

Visy Board Superannuation Pty Limited

3rd Defendant

Arpad Kozma

4th Defendant

Colin Frewen

5th Defendant

Reginald De Livera

6th Defendant

Stephen Smith

7th Defendant

Florian Karwacki

8th Defendant

Sylvia Kleinman

9th Defendant

Oscar Marconi

10th Defendant

Petru Suciu

11th Defendant

Thomas Hall

12th Defendant

Mark Williams

13th Defendant

Concetta Tedesco

14th Defendant

Don Rakoci

15th Defendant

Slako Gorguc

16th Defendant

Shane Rogers

17th Defendant

Maurice Rafidi

18th Defendant

Edward Denko

19th Defendant

Maria Drago

20th Defendant

Milenco Baloi

21st Defendant

Cane Mickovski

22nd Defendant

Eyup Turkoglu

23rd Defendant

Ugur Arslan

24th Defendant

Gregory Sabitino

25th Defendant

Ramadan Salievski

26th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rectification Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Annexure A to Ms Norris' affidavit is admissible as evidence
  2. 2 Whether Exhibit PX01 is admissible
  3. 3 Whether Annexure H is admissible as evidence of intention

Ratio Decidendi

It is reasonably open, on the material provided, to draw the necessary findings of authority and relevance for the documents in question at this stage. None of the objections are sufficient to exclude the evidence sought to be admitted, either on relevance or prejudice grounds.

Court Disposition

Tenders admitted

Orders

  • Annexure A to Ms Norris' affidavit admitted
  • Annexure E and Exhibit PX01 admitted