Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.15) [2003] NSWSC 939
The document was admitted as evidence of publication only; it was not admitted as evidence of the facts or opinions stated therein, as its probative value for those purposes was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendants. The section on business records (s69) did not apply because the journal article was not a record of business activities within the meaning of the section.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Walter Edward Roach; Plaintiff: Sydtech Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Winnote Pty Ltd; Defendant: Brian John Downey Page; Defendant: Peter Eustace Hollingdale; Defendant: Roderick McLeod; Defendant: Warren Francis Asprey; Defendant: Ian Farley Hutchinson; Defendant: Brian Edmond Thornton; Defendant: Thomas Owen Jones; Defendant: Geza Francis Kim Santow; Defendant: Robert Colin Nicholls; Defendant: James Henry Graham; Defendant: Peter Short; Defendant: Phillip Thornton Taylor; Defendant: Bruce Kelvin Cutler; Defendant: David Myles Bennett; Defendant: John Charles Mulally; Defendant: Kevin William Broadley; Defendant: James Michael Page; Defendant: Peter John Carney; Defendant: Patricia Helen Brown; Defendant: Brian John McFadyen; Defendant: Robert Andrew Channon; Defendant: Peter John Perry; Defendant: Douglas Michael Franc; Defendant: Peter Stanley Ridout; Defendant: Michael John Gray; Defendant: Howard Keith Chillingworth Steele; Defendant: Julian Block; Defendant: Elizabeth A Nosworthy; Defendant: Edward Joseph Wright; Defendant: Claire Grose; Defendant: John Hugh Clifford Colvin; Defendant: Bryan David Weir; Defendant: George Thomas Forster; Defendant: John Lindsay Arthur; Defendant: Roy Merrill Randall; Defendant: Anthony Jospeh Muratore; Defendant: Sir Clarence Waldemar Harders; Defendant: Peter Campbell Church; Defendant: Terence Michael Burke; Defendant: Richard Stuart Gray; Defendant: John Kevin O'Sullivan; Defendant: Gregory Stephen Pearce; Defendant: Rebecca Anne Davies; Defendant: John Martin Green; Defendant: Gordon David Cooper; Defendant: Pamela Gaye Edwards; Defendant: Stephen David Chipkin; Defendant: Yukio Hayashi; Defendant: Lucy Kathleen Farrell; Defendant: Paul Ashley Cooper; Defendant: Graham John Kelly; Defendant: Barry Leon Barker; Defendant: Philip John Christensen; Defendant: Fabian Gleeson; Defendant: Helen Irwin Wright; Defendant: Iain Ronald Jones; Defendant: Shaun Gerard McGushin; Defendant: Mark Russell Cohen; Defendant: Joanne Christine Seve; Defendant: Amanda Jane Harkness; Defendant: John Pierce Angus; Defendant: Cornelius Daniel Neil Griffin; Defendant: Murray John Dearberg; Defendant: Marc Sandford Hutchinson; Defendant: Timothy Mark Hirshman; Defendant: Leon Pasternak; Defendant: Kevin Alan Lewis; Defendant: Donald Bruce Robinson; Defendant: Michael Perrin Ryland; Defendant: Richard Randolph Pearson; Defendant: Geoffrey Howard Levy; Defendant: Geoffrey Alan McLellan; Defendant: David Jacob Hammerschlag; Defendant: Gavin Terence Bell; Defendant: John Gilbert Tabernar; Defendant: Michael John Back; Defendant: Georgina Margaret Gray; Defendant: Raymond Unyuen Ming Kwok; Defendant: Michael Orlov; Defendant: Bettie Anne McNee; Defendant: Brian David Kewley; Defendant: Keith Alfred Robert Skinner; Defendant: Jeffrey Stephen Kiddle; Defendant: Denis James Davies; Defendant: Davied Leonard Bailey; Defendant: Martin Moule Hudson; Defendant: Colin George Polites; Defendant: Marcus Kirkland Fairbairn; Defendant: John Alfred Emerson; Defendant: James Macklin Pfeiffer; Defendant: Russell David Allen; Defendant: Peter Algernon Franc Hay; Defendant: Paul Montgomery; Defendant: John Balfour Blanch; Defendant: Richard Geoffrey Eager; Defendant: Peter Farley Mitchell; Defendant: Peter Mark Butler; Defendant: Simon Anthony Yencken; Defendant: Peter William Stawell; Defendant: Stephen Marcus Stern; Defendant: John Lindsay Cooper; Defendant: Graeme James Smith; Defendant: Rayne De Gruchy; Defendant: Wayne McMaster; Defendant: Graeme Ross Watson; Defendant: Maxwell Douglas Ralph Cameron; Defendant: Frank Barry; Defendant: Irene Helen Zeitler
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
- Outcome
- Document admitted as evidence of publication only; use limited to proof of that fact
- Legal Topics
- Business Records, Hearsay Rule, Admissibility of Publications, Opinion Evidence, Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Walter Edward Roach
Plaintiff
Sydtech Pty Ltd
Plaintiff
Winnote Pty Ltd
Plaintiff
Brian John Downey Page
Defendant
Peter Eustace Hollingdale
Defendant
Roderick McLeod
Defendant
Warren Francis Asprey
Defendant
Ian Farley Hutchinson
Defendant
Brian Edmond Thornton
Defendant
Thomas Owen Jones
Defendant
Geza Francis Kim Santow
Defendant
Robert Colin Nicholls
Defendant
James Henry Graham
Defendant
Peter Short
Defendant
Phillip Thornton Taylor
Defendant
Bruce Kelvin Cutler
Defendant
David Myles Bennett
Defendant
John Charles Mulally
Defendant
Kevin William Broadley
Defendant
James Michael Page
Defendant
Peter John Carney
Defendant
Patricia Helen Brown
Defendant
Brian John McFadyen
Defendant
Robert Andrew Channon
Defendant
Peter John Perry
Defendant
Douglas Michael Franc
Defendant
Peter Stanley Ridout
Defendant
Michael John Gray
Defendant
Howard Keith Chillingworth Steele
Defendant
Julian Block
Defendant
Elizabeth A Nosworthy
Defendant
Edward Joseph Wright
Defendant
Claire Grose
Defendant
John Hugh Clifford Colvin
Defendant
Bryan David Weir
Defendant
George Thomas Forster
Defendant
John Lindsay Arthur
Defendant
Roy Merrill Randall
Defendant
Anthony Jospeh Muratore
Defendant
Sir Clarence Waldemar Harders
Defendant
Peter Campbell Church
Defendant
Terence Michael Burke
Defendant
Richard Stuart Gray
Defendant
John Kevin O'Sullivan
Defendant
Gregory Stephen Pearce
Defendant
Rebecca Anne Davies
Defendant
John Martin Green
Defendant
Gordon David Cooper
Defendant
Pamela Gaye Edwards
Defendant
Stephen David Chipkin
Defendant
Yukio Hayashi
Defendant
Lucy Kathleen Farrell
Defendant
Paul Ashley Cooper
Defendant
Graham John Kelly
Defendant
Barry Leon Barker
Defendant
Philip John Christensen
Defendant
Fabian Gleeson
Defendant
Helen Irwin Wright
Defendant
Iain Ronald Jones
Defendant
Shaun Gerard McGushin
Defendant
Mark Russell Cohen
Defendant
Joanne Christine Seve
Defendant
Amanda Jane Harkness
Defendant
John Pierce Angus
Defendant
Cornelius Daniel Neil Griffin
Defendant
Murray John Dearberg
Defendant
Marc Sandford Hutchinson
Defendant
Timothy Mark Hirshman
Defendant
Leon Pasternak
Defendant
Kevin Alan Lewis
Defendant
Donald Bruce Robinson
Defendant
Michael Perrin Ryland
Defendant
Richard Randolph Pearson
Defendant
Geoffrey Howard Levy
Defendant
Geoffrey Alan McLellan
Defendant
David Jacob Hammerschlag
Defendant
Gavin Terence Bell
Defendant
John Gilbert Tabernar
Defendant
Michael John Back
Defendant
Georgina Margaret Gray
Defendant
Raymond Unyuen Ming Kwok
Defendant
Michael Orlov
Defendant
Bettie Anne McNee
Defendant
Brian David Kewley
Defendant
Keith Alfred Robert Skinner
Defendant
Jeffrey Stephen Kiddle
Defendant
Denis James Davies
Defendant
Davied Leonard Bailey
Defendant
Martin Moule Hudson
Defendant
Colin George Polites
Defendant
Marcus Kirkland Fairbairn
Defendant
John Alfred Emerson
Defendant
James Macklin Pfeiffer
Defendant
Russell David Allen
Defendant
Peter Algernon Franc Hay
Defendant
Paul Montgomery
Defendant
John Balfour Blanch
Defendant
Richard Geoffrey Eager
Defendant
Peter Farley Mitchell
Defendant
Peter Mark Butler
Defendant
Simon Anthony Yencken
Defendant
Peter William Stawell
Defendant
Stephen Marcus Stern
Defendant
John Lindsay Cooper
Defendant
Graeme James Smith
Defendant
Rayne De Gruchy
Defendant
Wayne McMaster
Defendant
Graeme Ross Watson
Defendant
Maxwell Douglas Ralph Cameron
Defendant
Frank Barry
Defendant
Irene Helen Zeitler
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Meaning and ambit of 'records' in s69 Evidence Act 1995
- 2 Application of ss135 and 136 Evidence Act 1995 to potentially prejudicial evidence
- 3 Admissibility and probative value of an article in a trade journal
Ratio Decidendi
The document was admitted as evidence of publication only; it was not admitted as evidence of the facts or opinions stated therein, as its probative value for those purposes was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendants. The section on business records (s69) did not apply because the journal article was not a record of business activities within the meaning of the section.
Court Disposition
Document admitted as evidence of publication only; use limited to proof of that fact
Orders
- The exhibit is not evidence of any representation of fact or opinion contained in it.
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