Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 319

Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 319

The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it constituted hearsay under s 59(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, and did not fit within the statutory exceptions. Even if tendered as an admission by conduct, it was not admissible because the evidence was not given orally by a person who directly perceived the alleged admission, as required by s 82.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Lawrence Lewis; Defendant: Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Applicant: Lamru Pty Ltd; Respondent: Kation Pty Ltd; Liquidator: Brian Raymond Silvia; Defendant: Mark Lewis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Hearsay evidence ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility, Hearsay, Admissions, Civil Procedure
Evidence Admissibility Hearsay Admissions Civil Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Lawrence Lewis

Plaintiff

Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq)

Defendant

Lamru Pty Ltd

Applicant

Kation Pty Ltd

Respondent

Brian Raymond Silvia

Liquidator

Mark Lewis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of affidavits containing hearsay and admissions are admissible under the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it constituted hearsay under s 59(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, and did not fit within the statutory exceptions. Even if tendered as an admission by conduct, it was not admissible because the evidence was not given orally by a person who directly perceived the alleged admission, as required by s 82.

Court Disposition

Hearsay evidence ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • In the affidavit of R W Lamb sworn 19 June 2000, in the second last sentence the words 'that was not accounted for' are rejected; the balance of the second last sentence and the whole of the last sentence of the paragraph are admitted; the balance of the paragraph is rejected.
  • In the affidavit of R W Lamb sworn 3 December 2001, the whole of paragraph 2 is rejected.