Rickard Constructions v Rickard Hails Moretti & Ors [2004] NSWSC 984

Rickard Constructions v Rickard Hails Moretti & Ors [2004] NSWSC 984

The Truong e-mail and the two proofs of debt satisfied s 69(2), because the relevant factual representations were made by persons with actual or reasonably supposed personal knowledge, or from information supplied directly or indirectly by such persons. However, the Truong e-mail was prepared or obtained at least in part to allow Mayne to assess its position in relation to existing SBIP litigation and possible recovery if held liable, so s 69(3) applied to exclude it. The proofs of debt did not incorporate the material from the Truong e-mail in a way attracting s 69(3), and the possibility that Mayne might litigate against the plaintiff did not make s 69(3) applicable to them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings in the Equity Division, Technology and Construction List / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The tender of the Truong e-mail was rejected, but the two proofs of debt were admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'business Records Exception' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 69' 'documents Prepared for or in Contemplation of Australian Proceedings' 'admissibility of Proofs of Debt']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'construction'] ['hearsay' 'business Records Exception' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 69' 'documents Prepared for or in Contemplation of Australian Proceedings' 'admissibility of Proofs of Debt']

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

Civil Proceedings in the Equity Division, Technology and Construction List / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Truong e-mail and two proofs of debt were admissible as business records under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 notwithstanding hearsay assertions.' 'Whether the representations in the documents were made by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge, or on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by such a person, under s 69(2).' 'Whether s 69(3) applied because the representations were prepared or obtained for the purpose of conducting, or for or in contemplation of, or in connection with, an Australian proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Truong e-mail and the two proofs of debt satisfied s 69(2), because the relevant factual representations were made by persons with actual or reasonably supposed personal knowledge, or from information supplied directly or indirectly by such persons. However, the Truong e-mail was prepared or obtained at least in part to allow Mayne to assess its position in relation to existing SBIP litigation and possible recovery if held liable, so s 69(3) applied to exclude it. The proofs of debt did not incorporate the material from the Truong e-mail in a way attracting s 69(3), and the possibility that Mayne might litigate against the plaintiff did not make s 69(3) applicable to them.

Court Disposition

The tender of the Truong e-mail was rejected, but the two proofs of debt were admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • ['Tender of the Truong e-mail rejected.' 'The two proofs of debt admitted into evidence.']