Pacific Resources International Pty Ltd v UTI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1083

Pacific Resources International Pty Ltd v UTI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1083

The Particulars Letter was admissible as an admission by PRI because the evidence showed that PRI's director, Mr Bennett, had provided the 1 June 2004 Warehouse and Distribution Proposal including the Standard Terms and Conditions to the investigator as the current agreement between PRI and UTI, the solicitor's statement in the Particulars Letter reflected those instructions and was not contrary to the facts, and it was open to find that the solicitor had authority to make the admission within s 87(1)(a) of the Evidence Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Concerning Admission of Particulars as Evidence / During Uti's Case at Trial, After PRI Had Opened and Closed Its Case Without Calling Witnesses
Outcome
The Particulars Letter was admitted as an admission by PRI and marked Exhibit 12.
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'particulars' "solicitor's Ostensible Authority" 'exclusion or Limitation of Evidence' 'standard Terms and Conditions' 'bailment for Reward']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'commercial Law'] ['admissions' 'particulars' "solicitor's Ostensible Authority" 'exclusion or Limitation of Evidence' 'standard Terms and Conditions' 'bailment for Reward']

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

Interlocutory Application Concerning Admission of Particulars as Evidence / During Uti's Case at Trial, After PRI Had Opened and Closed Its Case Without Calling Witnesses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a letter dated 17 June 2008 from PRI's solicitors providing particulars was admissible against PRI as an admission that UTI's Standard Terms and Conditions formed part of the contract between PRI and UTI." 'Whether the Particulars Letter should be excluded or limited under s 135 or s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 because it was said to have no probative value.' "Whether PRI's solicitor had authority to make the relevant statement in the Particulars Letter within the meaning of s 87(1)(a) of the Evidence Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Particulars Letter was admissible as an admission by PRI because the evidence showed that PRI's director, Mr Bennett, had provided the 1 June 2004 Warehouse and Distribution Proposal including the Standard Terms and Conditions to the investigator as the current agreement between PRI and UTI, the solicitor's statement in the Particulars Letter reflected those instructions and was not contrary to the facts, and it was open to find that the solicitor had authority to make the admission within s 87(1)(a) of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

The Particulars Letter was admitted as an admission by PRI and marked Exhibit 12.

Orders

  • ['The Particulars Letter is admitted.']