Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 657

Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 657

The only proven connection between Mr van Rij and Narui Gold Coast Pty Limited was that he was its secretary. That office alone did not show he was an employee of the company, nor did it establish authority beyond authority implied from the statutory functions of a company secretary. The statements in the tendered paragraphs were not within that implied authority, so s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not make them admissions of the defendant and the tender could not overcome the hearsay objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling; Evidence Admissibility / Voir Dire as to Admissibility of Paragraphs of Police Statement
Outcome
Tendered paragraphs of police statement of Mr van Rij rejected.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissions' 'authority of Company Secretary' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss 81 and 87']
['evidence' 'corporations'] ['hearsay' 'admissions' 'authority of Company Secretary' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss 81 and 87']

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 / Voir Dire as to Admissibility of Paragraphs of Police Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the tendered paragraphs of Mr van Rij's police statement were inadmissible hearsay or could be admitted as an admission of Narui Gold Coast Pty Limited under ss 81 and 87 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether Mr van Rij, as company secretary of Narui Gold Coast Pty Limited, was an employee or had authority to make statements on behalf of the company in relation to the matters in the tendered paragraphs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The only proven connection between Mr van Rij and Narui Gold Coast Pty Limited was that he was its secretary. That office alone did not show he was an employee of the company, nor did it establish authority beyond authority implied from the statutory functions of a company secretary. The statements in the tendered paragraphs were not within that implied authority, so s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not make them admissions of the defendant and the tender could not overcome the hearsay objection.

Court Disposition

Tendered paragraphs of police statement of Mr van Rij rejected.

Orders

  • ["The tendered paragraphs of Mr van Rij's statement are rejected."]