Republic of Brazel v Durant [2011] JRC 238 (22 December 2011)

Republic of Brazel v Durant [2011] JRC 238 (22 December 2011)

The court has jurisdiction to exclude otherwise admissible evidence in advance of trial, but should exercise this power with considerable caution, especially where the evidence relates to central facts and is not the sole basis of the claim. The depositions of Simao Damascene De Oliveira should not be excluded at this stage, and the Defendants are granted leave to call him for cross-examination subject to conditions. Applications to exclude the depositions of the other five witnesses are adjourned until after the Plaintiffs have opened their case at trial.

Citation
[2011] JRC 238
Parties
Applicant: Plaintiffs; Respondent: Defendants
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Exclude Hearsay Evidence / Pre Trial Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application to exclude depositions of Simao Damascene De Oliveira refused; applications regarding other five witnesses adjourned.
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence, Cross Examination, Case Management Powers
Civil Procedure Evidence Hearsay Evidence Exclusion of Evidence Cross Examination Case Management Powers

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Applicant

Defendants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Exclude Hearsay Evidence / Pre Trial Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to exclude hearsay evidence in advance of trial
  2. 2 Whether the depositions of six witnesses should be excluded from trial
  3. 3 Whether Defendants should be permitted to call and cross-examine the makers of the depositions

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to exclude otherwise admissible evidence in advance of trial, but should exercise this power with considerable caution, especially where the evidence relates to central facts and is not the sole basis of the claim. The depositions of Simao Damascene De Oliveira should not be excluded at this stage, and the Defendants are granted leave to call him for cross-examination subject to conditions. Applications to exclude the depositions of the other five witnesses are adjourned until after the Plaintiffs have opened their case at trial.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude depositions of Simao Damascene De Oliveira refused; applications regarding other five witnesses adjourned.

Orders

  • Defendants granted leave to call and cross-examine Simao Damascene De Oliveira subject to conditions.
  • Defendants granted leave to call and cross-examine other five witnesses if their depositions are not excluded, subject to same conditions.