Legal Research
Cases
Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson

Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson

Link copied

Case Copied 18 December 2013 38 min read

Contents

On this page

AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT LTD -v- JACKSON [2013] WASC 464

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 464
Case No:	CIV:1626/2008	Heard:	16 DECEMBER 2013
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	18/12/13
No of pages:	25	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	(i) The statements in exhibit 34 are admissible under s 79C(2a) as evidence of those facts (ii) The statements in exhibit 41 are not admissible as evidence of those facts under s 79C(2a) (iii) The plaintiff has leave to reopen its case for the limited purpose of calling Mr Catlin to verify his 2002 report
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT LTD BRETT LESLIE JACKSON GRAEME MICHAEL GOFF BUNBURY CENTRO PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Evidence s 79C(2a) Evidence Act 1906 (WA) Meaning of 'business records' Two limbs of business records concerning 'preparation' and 'use' Limitation upon the 'use' limb that it be contemplated that there will be some further or ongoing recording of information by or on behalf of the business The same limitation does not apply to the 'preparation' limb Practice and procedure Construction of pleadings Extent of admission made by defendants Whether leave should be given to plaintiff to reopen
Legislation:	Acts Amendment (Evidence) Act 2000 (WA) Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 78B, s 79C(2)(a), s 79C(2)(g), s 79C(5)(a), s 79C(2a) Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 45A
Case References:	Atra v Farmers & Graziers Co-op Co Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 281 Donohoe v The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2011] WASCA 239 Inspector General in Bankruptcy v Bradshaw [2006] FCA 22 Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd v Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 560 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 2] [2010] WASC 153 Nicholson v The Queen (1984) 12 A Crim R 231 Osborne v Landpower Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] WASCA 117 R v P [2001] NSWCA 473; (2001) 53 NSWLR 664 Rapid Metal Developments (Australia) Pty Ltd v Anderson Formrite Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 255 Re L (A Minor) (Police Investigation Privilege) [1997] AC 16 RW Miller & Co Pty Ltd v Krupp (Australia) Pty Ltd (1991) 32 NSWLR 152 Sendy v Commonwealth [2002] NSWSC 1109 Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256 Soia v Bennett [No 4] [2012] WASC 292 Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Andersen & Co (No 10) [2002] SASC 128; (2002) 82 SASR 53 Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1984) 56 ALR 647

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT LTD -v- JACKSON [2013] WASC 464 CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 16 DECEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 18 DECEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1626 of 2008 BETWEEN : AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT LTD

Plaintiff

AND

BRETT LESLIE JACKSON

First Defendant

GRAEME MICHAEL GOFF

Second Defendant

BUNBURY CENTRO PTY LTD

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Evidence - s 79C(2a) Evidence Act 1906 (WA) - Meaning of 'business records' - Two limbs of business records…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] WASC 464
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia by Edelman J. The case concerned issues of admissibility of certain documents as evidence in a civil claim for damages for breach of contract. The first issue was whether certain documents were admissible under s 79C(2a) of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA). The court held that one of the documents, a document recording costs, was admissible as it was prepared in the ordinary course of business for the purpose of recording a matter relating to the business. The second document, a memorandum concerning a business transaction, was not admissible as it was not prepared in the ordinary course of business for the purpose of recording a matter relating to the business. The court also ruled that the plaintiff had leave to reopen its case to call an expert to verify his report on the value of the property, as the defendants had not admitted that the report was an honestly held opinion.

Orders