Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2015] NSWSC 19
The evidence concerning the events of 6 October 2006, including the diary note and conversations, is admissible as it is relevant to testing the plaintiff's assertion of reliance on the broker's advice and is not unfairly prejudicial. It is not essentially or exclusively tendency evidence.
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Marshall Ahern; Second Plaintiff: Estelle Therese Clancy; First Defendant: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd; Second Defendant: Trent Uno Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Leo Di Paolo
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 February 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidentiary Ruling
- Outcome
- Evidence admitted
- Legal Topics
- Tendency Evidence, Non Tendency Evidence, Admissibility
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Marshall Ahern
First Plaintiff
Estelle Therese Clancy
Second Plaintiff
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd
First Defendant
Trent Uno Pty Ltd
Second Defendant
Leo Di Paolo
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidentiary Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence rebutting assertion of reliance is admissible as non-tendency evidence
- 2 Whether the evidence is unfairly prejudicial or irrelevant
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence concerning the events of 6 October 2006, including the diary note and conversations, is admissible as it is relevant to testing the plaintiff's assertion of reliance on the broker's advice and is not unfairly prejudicial. It is not essentially or exclusively tendency evidence.
Court Disposition
Evidence admitted
Orders
- Diary note and conversations evidence are admitted and marked as exhibits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment