Mobileciti Pty Limited v Vodafone Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 891

Mobileciti Pty Limited v Vodafone Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 891

The survey evidence constituted hearsay, was unclear and equivocal, there was no satisfactory explanation for not calling the original informants, and admitting it would cause unfair prejudice by precluding cross-examination; therefore, the evidence was excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Survey evidence excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'business Records' 'judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence']
['evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'business Records' 'judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence']

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 Proceedings / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether survey documents tendered as business records should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995']

Ratio Decidendi

The survey evidence constituted hearsay, was unclear and equivocal, there was no satisfactory explanation for not calling the original informants, and admitting it would cause unfair prejudice by precluding cross-examination; therefore, the evidence was excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Survey evidence excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995

Orders

  • ['Survey evidence rejected under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995']