Matinca v Coalroc (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1721

Matinca v Coalroc (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1721

The statement that the road section had since been repaired and resurfaced was admissible because the court inferred, for admissibility purposes, that the plaintiff's father had personal knowledge of the repairs or had obtained information from someone who did. However, the adjective "bad" was ambiguous and, to have probative value under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), would need to be admissible as expert opinion about the safety and efficiency of the road surface; it was therefore excluded as impermissible lay opinion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Evidence / Ex Tempore Judgment During Hearing
Outcome
Delete the adjective "bad" out of the form and otherwise admit the document as Exhibit DCB 403-408.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'admissibility of Documentary Evidence' 'lay Opinion' 'personal Knowledge']
['evidence'] ['relevance' 'admissibility of Documentary Evidence' 'lay Opinion' 'personal Knowledge']

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 Ruling on Evidence / Ex Tempore Judgment During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether part of an accident notification form was admissible as evidence concerning subsequent repair and resurfacing of the road.' 'Whether the adjective "bad" in the phrase "this section of bad road" was admissible or should be excluded as ambiguous and as lay opinion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement that the road section had since been repaired and resurfaced was admissible because the court inferred, for admissibility purposes, that the plaintiff's father had personal knowledge of the repairs or had obtained information from someone who did. However, the adjective "bad" was ambiguous and, to have probative value under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), would need to be admissible as expert opinion about the safety and efficiency of the road surface; it was therefore excluded as impermissible lay opinion.

Court Disposition

Delete the adjective "bad" out of the form and otherwise admit the document as Exhibit DCB 403-408.

Orders

  • ['The word "bad" is deleted from the tendered material.' 'The part not in issue is taken out.' 'The document is otherwise admitted as Exhibit DCB 403-408.']