Bland v Australian Portable Camps Services Pty Ltd

This matter came before Judge Brown concerning allegations of adverse action brought by Mr Bland against Australian Portable Camps Services Pty Ltd (APC). The dispute arose from Mr Bland's claim that he was subjected to adverse action as a result of exercising a workplace right.

The court was required to determine preliminary rulings on the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically concerning hearsay and admissions made with authority. The central evidentiary issue was whether statements allegedly made by Mr Devey, an employee of APC, to Mr Bowman, which Mr Bowman sought to adduce, constituted admissible evidence. This involved considering the hearsay rule and its exceptions, particularly regarding admissions made by employees or agents of a party.

Judge Brown considered the hearsay rule under section 59 of the Evidence Act, noting that evidence of a previous representation is generally inadmissible to prove the asserted fact. However, the court examined section 81, which excludes the hearsay rule for evidence of an admission, defined as a representation adverse to a party's interests. The court then turned to section 87, which provides for the admission of representations made by a person if it is reasonably open to find that the person had authority to make statements on behalf of the party, was an employee whose representation related to their scope of employment, or made the representation in furtherance of a common purpose with the party. The court found it was a question of fact whether Mr Devey had the authority to make the attributed statements and whether they fell within the scope of his employment at APC. The court noted Mr Devey's affidavit, which detailed his role in workforce reductions and his lack of involvement in decision-making processes regarding redundancies, including those affecting Mr Bland.