Lowe v Lang [2000] NSWSC 308

Lowe v Lang [2000] NSWSC 308

A direction for production under s 34 of the Evidence Act 1995 can only be made concerning specified documents. Where a witness merely says that, 'in part at least,' he referred to a collection of documents to refresh his memory, it cannot be inferred that any specific document was so used; therefore, the requisite foundation for an order is not established and the application must fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for production of documents refused; costs of the application reserved.
Legal Topics
['witnesses' 'refreshing Memory' 'production of Documents' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 34']
['evidence'] ['witnesses' 'refreshing Memory' 'production of Documents' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 34']

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

Equity / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents used by a witness to refresh memory, but not while giving evidence, are sufficiently identified for production to be ordered under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 34.']

Ratio Decidendi

A direction for production under s 34 of the Evidence Act 1995 can only be made concerning specified documents. Where a witness merely says that, 'in part at least,' he referred to a collection of documents to refresh his memory, it cannot be inferred that any specific document was so used; therefore, the requisite foundation for an order is not established and the application must fail.

Court Disposition

Application for production of documents refused; costs of the application reserved.

Orders

  • ['Application for production of documents is refused.' 'Costs of the application are reserved.']