Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 17) [2018] NSWSC 1420

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 17) [2018] NSWSC 1420

The report was a record belonging to or kept by the NSW Office of Water in the course of or for the purposes of its business, and the factual representations were made on the basis of information indirectly supplied by persons who might reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge. Two identified passages were expert opinions not shown to be admissible under ss 77 to 81 and were rejected. The remaining representations had real probative value concerning the use of rainfall forecasts in dam operations, and although the defendants faced some prejudice in testing factual matters in the report, that prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value under s 135.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural Evidentiary Ruling in Common Law Proceedings / Tender of Report During Cross Examination at Hearing
Outcome
Report admitted in part; identified expert opinion passages excluded.
Legal Topics
['documentary Evidence' 'business Records' 'opinion Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'flood Operations Report']
['evidence'] ['documentary Evidence' 'business Records' 'opinion Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'flood Operations Report']

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 Evidentiary Ruling in Common Law Proceedings / Tender of Report During Cross Examination at Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the report was admissible as a business record under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether relevant representations in the report were made by persons with personal knowledge or on information supplied directly or indirectly by such persons for the purposes of s 69(2).' 'Whether parts of the report contained expert opinions requiring proof under ss 77 to 81 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the balance of the report should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because prejudice substantially outweighed probative value.']

Ratio Decidendi

The report was a record belonging to or kept by the NSW Office of Water in the course of or for the purposes of its business, and the factual representations were made on the basis of information indirectly supplied by persons who might reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge. Two identified passages were expert opinions not shown to be admissible under ss 77 to 81 and were rejected. The remaining representations had real probative value concerning the use of rainfall forecasts in dam operations, and although the defendants faced some prejudice in testing factual matters in the report, that prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value under s 135.

Court Disposition

Report admitted in part; identified expert opinion passages excluded.

Orders

  • ['MSC.010.286.0001 admitted save for the second paragraph under the heading "Emergency procedure" on 0028 and the passages under the heading "Operational decisions" on page 0034.']