Xiang v Ward (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 69

Xiang v Ward (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 69

The document was not admitted because no evidence was provided to satisfy the requirements of s 64(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 regarding the impracticability or undue expense of calling the author; further, no notice was given under s 67, and there was insufficient basis to excuse this requirement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
refusal of tender
Legal Topics
['admissibility' 'correspondence' 'business Record' 'hearsay' 'evidence']
['procedure'] ['admissibility' 'correspondence' 'business Record' 'hearsay' 'evidence']

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

Civil / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether correspondence from an accountant is admissible as evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule under the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether the requirements of s 64 and s 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 for hearsay exceptions are satisfied']

Ratio Decidendi

The document was not admitted because no evidence was provided to satisfy the requirements of s 64(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 regarding the impracticability or undue expense of calling the author; further, no notice was given under s 67, and there was insufficient basis to excuse this requirement.

Court Disposition

refusal of tender

Orders

  • ['I refuse to admit the document into evidence.']