Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd v CFMEU (Ruling No 2)

In this case, the applicant, Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd, sought to introduce evidence of statements made to it by its customers regarding the cancellation of concrete supply contracts due to union industrial bans. The respondents, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), objected to the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that it was hearsay and that the customers were not available to be cross-examined. The matter was heard in the Australian Building and Construction Commission, where the primary judge was required to determine whether the statements were admissible under the hearsay rule exceptions and whether they constituted contemporaneous representations about the customers' intentions and state of mind.

The court considered whether the statements could be admitted under the hearsay rule exceptions in the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). Specifically, the court examined whether the statements were contemporaneous representations of the customers' intentions and state of mind, and whether they were made in circumstances that gave them probative value. The court found that the statements were made in the course of the customers' dealings with the applicant and were contemporaneous with the events they described. The court also found that the statements had probative value and were relevant to the issues in the case. The court further found that the absence of the customers from the proceedings did not necessarily render the statements inadmissible, as the hearsay rule exceptions were not intended to be absolute barriers to the admission of relevant evidence.

The court concluded that the statements were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule and could be considered as evidence in the case. The court found that the statements were relevant to the applicants' case and could be used to establish the customers' intentions and state of mind at the time of the cancellations. The court also found that the absence of the customers did not render the statements inadmissible, as the hearsay rule exceptions were not intended to be absolute barriers to the admission of relevant evidence. The court held that the statements were admissible and could be considered by the tribunal in determining the case.

The court ordered that the statements made by the customers to the applicant be admitted as evidence in the case. The court found that the statements were relevant and probative and could be used to establish the customers' intentions and state of mind at the time of the cancellations. The court held that the absence of the customers did not render the statements inadmissible, as the hearsay rule exceptions were not intended to be absolute barriers to the admission of relevant evidence. The court concluded that the statements were admissible and could be considered by the tribunal in determining the case.