Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd and Another [2005] NSWLEC 509

Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd and Another [2005] NSWLEC 509

Because Mr Robertson was available and there was no reasonable cause based on availability, convenience or delay, and because there was likely to be a dispute about the matter to which the evidence related, the first respondent should be given a reasonable opportunity to deal with admissibility; the Court was not prepared at this stage to disallow the evidence under s 135 without further development of argument.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Court Proceedings Involving an Evidence Request / Interlocutory Determination of a Request Under S 168 of the Evidence Act 1995 and Order Under S 169(1)
Outcome
Order made requiring the applicant to comply with the request to call Mr Robertson.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Documents' 'request to Call Witness' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'delay or Undue Waste of Time' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss 135, 167(c), 168 and 169']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Documents' 'request to Call Witness' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'delay or Undue Waste of Time' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss 135, 167(c), 168 and 169']

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

Land and Environment Court Proceedings Involving an Evidence Request / Interlocutory Determination of a Request Under S 168 of the Evidence Act 1995 and Order Under S 169(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be ordered under s 169(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 to comply with the first respondent's request to call Mr Robertson to assist the Court in determining the admissibility of documents 137 to 144 except 141 in exhibit A4." 'Whether there was any reasonable cause relating to availability, convenience or delay against making the order.' 'Whether the documents should be disallowed at this stage as unfairly prejudicial, misleading, confusing or likely to cause undue waste of time under s 135.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Robertson was available and there was no reasonable cause based on availability, convenience or delay, and because there was likely to be a dispute about the matter to which the evidence related, the first respondent should be given a reasonable opportunity to deal with admissibility; the Court was not prepared at this stage to disallow the evidence under s 135 without further development of argument.

Court Disposition

Order made requiring the applicant to comply with the request to call Mr Robertson.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 169(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, the applicant is to comply with the request to call Mr Robertson.']