Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Business Records) [2020] FCA 1195

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Business Records) [2020] FCA 1195

The Prospectus was a business record and the challenged statements were admissible under s 69(2) only for the limited purpose of proving the state of mind or belief of the relevant signatories or Hytera, not for proving the truth of the opinions about future market demand. Once the asserted fact was identified as the belief that demand for analog products would continue, rather than the truth of that belief, the material was admissible, with its use confined under s 136.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Evidence Objection in Intellectual Property Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Prospectus Into Evidence
Outcome
Prospectus admitted into evidence with use confined under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['business Records Exception' 'hearsay Rule' 'opinion Evidence' 'use Limitation Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'relevance']
['evidence' 'intellectual Property'] ['business Records Exception' 'hearsay Rule' 'opinion Evidence' 'use Limitation Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'relevance']

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

Evidence Objection in Intellectual Property Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Prospectus Into Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of the First Respondent's May 2011 Initial Public Offering Prospectus were admissible under s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as business records." 'Whether s 69(2) applies to expressions of opinion as to the existence of an asserted fact.' "Whether the impugned statements could be admitted to prove the existence of Hytera's belief rather than the truth of the opinion expressed." 'Whether the use of the Prospectus should be confined under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Prospectus was a business record and the challenged statements were admissible under s 69(2) only for the limited purpose of proving the state of mind or belief of the relevant signatories or Hytera, not for proving the truth of the opinions about future market demand. Once the asserted fact was identified as the belief that demand for analog products would continue, rather than the truth of that belief, the material was admissible, with its use confined under s 136.

Court Disposition

Prospectus admitted into evidence with use confined under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['The Prospectus was admitted into evidence.' 'Use of the Prospectus was confined to proving the state of mind of the persons signing it.' 'Use of the Prospectus was confined to proving that Mr G S Kok was a senior executive of Hytera, appropriate to certify the contents of the Prospectus as correct and to assume...