Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3)

Campaign Master (UK) Ltd, the applicant, sought to introduce hearsay evidence in its case against Forty Two International Pty Ltd, the respondent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant aimed to rely on statements made by certain individuals, who were available to testify, to support its claims. However, the applicant did not intend to call these individuals as witnesses but instead proposed that other individuals provide evidence of those statements.

The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant could rely on hearsay evidence in this context, and if so, under which provisions of the Evidence Act. The court considered the provisions of the Evidence Act that allow for exceptions to the hearsay rule, specifically sections 63 and 64. The court noted that section 63 was not applicable in this case because the individuals who made the statements were available to testify. The court also considered section 64, which allows for the use of hearsay evidence when it would cause undue expense or delay to call the maker of the representation to give evidence, or if the maker is also to be called to give evidence.

The court found that the applicant could not rely on hearsay evidence in this case because the individuals who made the statements were available to testify. The court noted that the applicant had not proposed to call these individuals as witnesses, and instead intended to have other individuals provide evidence of the statements. The court held that this was not an acceptable use of hearsay evidence under section 64 of the Evidence Act. The court also noted that the applicant would be required to make good all the essential ingredients of its case, including proving that any loss of custom or failure to attract new custom could be attributed to the respondent.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and ordered the applicant to provide further security for the respondent's costs in the proceeding. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the applicant's motion and the respondent's motion. The court granted the respondent's application for the production of certain confidential exhibits, subject to certain conditions.