Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1247

Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1247

Although it was not reasonably open to find that Hiroyuki Narui had authority to make statements on behalf of Narui Gold Coast on 21 January 2004, it was reasonably open to find that Hiroyuki Narui, Narui Gold Coast and Mt Warning had a common purpose of assisting the police investigation adverse to Mr Barr, and that the representations were made in furtherance of that common purpose. Section 87(1)(c), with s 81, therefore made the extracted questions and answers admissible, and s 135 exclusion was not appropriate because Narui Gold Coast could tender any further explanatory material from the same document under s 81(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling; Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Ruling on Plaintiffs' Tender of Questions and Answers
Outcome
Questions and answers plaintiffs wish to tender admitted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility' 'relevance' 'admissions' 'hearsay Statements' 'authority to Make Statements on Behalf of a Party' 'statements in Furtherance of a Common Purpose' 'discretionary Exclusion']
['evidence'] ['admissibility' 'relevance' 'admissions' 'hearsay Statements' 'authority to Make Statements on Behalf of a Party' 'statements in Furtherance of a Common Purpose' 'discretionary Exclusion']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling; Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Ruling on Plaintiffs' Tender of Questions and Answers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether hearsay representations made by Hiroyuki Narui in questions and answers signed on 21 January 2004 were admissible as admissions of Narui Gold Coast under ss 81 and 87 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether it was reasonably open to find that Hiroyuki Narui had authority to make statements on behalf of Narui Gold Coast at the time the representations were made.' 'Whether it was reasonably open to find that the representations were made in furtherance of a common purpose of Hiroyuki Narui and Narui Gold Coast or others including Narui Gold Coast.' 'Whether the discretion in s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 should be exercised to exclude the material.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although it was not reasonably open to find that Hiroyuki Narui had authority to make statements on behalf of Narui Gold Coast on 21 January 2004, it was reasonably open to find that Hiroyuki Narui, Narui Gold Coast and Mt Warning had a common purpose of assisting the police investigation adverse to Mr Barr, and that the representations were made in furtherance of that common purpose. Section 87(1)(c), with s 81, therefore made the extracted questions and answers admissible, and s 135 exclusion was not appropriate because Narui Gold Coast could tender any further explanatory material from the same document under s 81(2).

Court Disposition

Questions and answers plaintiffs wish to tender admitted.

Orders

  • ['The particularly extracted questions and answers that the plaintiffs wish to tender will be admitted.']