Republic of Brazil v Durant [2012] JCA 094 (11 May 2012)

Republic of Brazil v Durant [2012] JCA 094 (11 May 2012)

The Commissioner was not plainly wrong in admitting the hearsay witness statements, as the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to justify exclusion, the prior reasoning regarding Dr. Marques was not applicable, and the offer of video-link cross-examination was properly considered. The trial court retains the duty to ensure fairness.

Citation
[2012] JCA 094
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: The Federal Republic of Brazil; Respondent/plaintiff: The Municipality of Sao Paulo; Appellant/defendant: Durant International Corporation; Appellant/defendant: Kildare Finance Limited; Other: Deutsche Bank International Limited; Other: Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited; Other: Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited; Other: Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision Prior to Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Case Management, Video Link Testimony, Fair Trial Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federal Republic of Brazil

Respondent/plaintiff

The Municipality of Sao Paulo

Respondent/plaintiff

Durant International Corporation

Appellant/defendant

Kildare Finance Limited

Appellant/defendant

Deutsche Bank International Limited

Other

Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited

Other

Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited

Other

Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited

Other

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision Prior to Trial

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner erred in admitting hearsay witness statements at trial
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to exclude hearsay evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner's decision was inconsistent with prior reasoning regarding Dr. Marques

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner was not plainly wrong in admitting the hearsay witness statements, as the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to justify exclusion, the prior reasoning regarding Dr. Marques was not applicable, and the offer of video-link cross-examination was properly considered. The trial court retains the duty to ensure fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Witness statements admitted as evidence at trial