Warea Pty Ltd & Anor v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 234

Warea Pty Ltd & Anor v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 234

Applications for summary judgment under 0.20, r.1 must be supported by non-hearsay affidavit evidence; hearsay evidence is not admissible due to the inapplicability of 0.33, r.2, and the applications fail as they are based almost wholly on hearsay evidence.

Parties
First Applicant: WAREA PTY. LTD.; Second Applicant: STRIPE PTY. LTD.; Applicant: NERIDA PARKER; First Respondent: WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. trading as DELTRITE FINANCIAL SERVICES; Second Respondent: WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG; Third Respondent: LISA N. VIRBA; Fourth Respondent: ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS; Fifth Respondent: JOAN LENORE CECILIA ARMSTRONG
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1986
Procedural Posture
Applications for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Applications for summary judgment dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Summary Judgment, Affidavit Evidence, Federal Court Rules
Civil Procedure Hearsay Evidence Summary Judgment Affidavit Evidence Federal Court Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAREA PTY. LTD.

First Applicant

STRIPE PTY. LTD.

Second Applicant

NERIDA PARKER

Applicant

WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. trading as DELTRITE FINANCIAL SERVICES

First Respondent

WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG

Second Respondent

LISA N. VIRBA

Third Respondent

ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS

Fourth Respondent

JOAN LENORE CECILIA ARMSTRONG

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay evidence is admissible on an application for summary judgment under 0.20, r.1 of the Federal Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the application for summary judgment must be supported by non-hearsay evidence
  3. 3 Whether the question of the existence of the Caribbean Bank of Credit Limited is ‘not bona fide in dispute’ under 0.33, r.3(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Applications for summary judgment under 0.20, r.1 must be supported by non-hearsay affidavit evidence; hearsay evidence is not admissible due to the inapplicability of 0.33, r.2, and the applications fail as they are based almost wholly on hearsay evidence.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary judgment dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The applications for judgment under 0.20, r.1 in G6 of 1986 and G14 of 1986 be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay to the first and second respondents their costs of and incidental to the said applications, to be taxed.