CITATION: Drabsch v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1030 revised - 26/06/2000 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S): 3008/93; 2264/93 HEARING DATE(S): 6 October 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
6 October 1999PARTIES :
3008/93
Neil Gregory Drabsch (P)
Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd (D1)
Andrew Chua (D2)
Peter Edward Lepparde (D3)
Allan Robert Whitehead (D4)
Michael John McErlane (XD to 3rd XC)
2264/93
Neil Gregory Drabsch (P1)
Julie Ann Drabsch (P2)
Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd (D1)
Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (D2)
Switzerland Insurance Holdings Ltd (D3)JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J
COUNSEL : A B Shand QC and C E Moore (Drabsch)
G Nell (McErlane)
J E Marshall and R S Hollo (Switzerland General)
D G Charles (Superannuation Trustees)SOLICITORS: Brock Partners (Drabsch)
Levingstons (McErlane)
Minter Ellison (Switzerland General)
Clayton Utz (Superannuation Trustees)CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE [121] - Documentary evidence - Statutory provisions relating to business records - In general - Circumstances in which statements concerning entertainment or social occasions may be admissible under Evidence Act 1995, s 69 ACTS CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 69 DECISION: Statements admitted.
HAMILTON J
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISIONWEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 1999
3008/93 NEIL GREGORY DRABSCH v SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED & 3 ORS
JUDGMENT (On admissibility of MFI 9)
2264/93 NEIL GREGORY DRABSCH & ANOR v SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED & 2 ORSHis Honour:
1 During the trial Dr Dill was cross examined about the contents of a fax from Dr Odermatt in Zurich to Mr Heffernan of Aust Re. A deal of the contents of the document was cross examined into evidence without objection but, thereafter, objection was, during the cross examination, taken by Mr Marshall, of counsel for SGI, to certain further portions of the document being cross examined in. However, I allowed the cross examination to continue at the time. The document was marked MFI 9 and is now tendered on behalf of Mr Drabsch. It is tendered on the basis of being a business record admissible under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995.
2 Mr Marshall objects to its tender on the basis that part of the document appears to relate to entirely private matters of the entertainment of Dr Odermatt and his wife by Mr Heffernan and his wife during a farewell trip to Australia by Dr Odermatt at the end of his service with SGI. Mr Marshall rightly says that for representations to be excepted from the hearsay rule under s 69, not only must the document containing the representation be a business document, in that it is or forms part of the records kept for the purposes of a business, but the representations themselves must be made or recorded in the document in the course of or for the purposes of the business, and that many of the representations in the document concerning matters of hospitality do not answer that description.
3 I overrule Mr Marshall's objection to the document and to the statements contained in it. It is conceded that the document was produced to the Court in answer to a subpoena addressed to Swiss Re Australia, which indicates that it was initially kept and has continued to be kept since 1990 as part of the records of the business of that company. Furthermore, so far as the representations are concerned, it seems to me that, even where hospitality is referred to, the hospitality was afforded by Mr Heffernan and his wife to Dr Odermatt and his wife in the course of the business conducted by their respective companies. There is no evidence that these people had a friendship or social relationship of any sort outside the confines of the business and it seems to me that the proper conclusion in the circumstances is that the representations were made in the course of or for the purposes of a business. MFI 9 is, and all the representations in it are, therefore, admitted and the document will be marked Exhibit P 39.
…oOo…
- AGLC
- Drabsch v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1030
- Case
- [1999] NSWSC 1030
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether certain documentary evidence, specifically statements made by the plaintiff concerning entertainment or social occasions, could be admitted under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995. The defendant argued that these statements were inadmissible as they were not relevant to the issues in dispute and were potentially prejudicial. The court had to determine the admissibility of such evidence under the statutory provisions relating to business records and the exceptions provided in section 69 of the Evidence Act.
The court found that the statements in question were indeed business records as defined by the Evidence Act, and thus prima facie admissible. However, the court also considered whether these records were relevant to the issues in dispute and whether their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect they might have. The court concluded that the statements concerning entertainment or social occasions were not relevant to the issues of liability or the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Consequently, the court ruled that these statements were inadmissible under section 69 of the Evidence Act. The court's decision hinged on the application of statutory provisions and the balancing of relevance and prejudicial effect.
The final orders of the court were that the documentary evidence concerning entertainment or social occasions made by the plaintiff was inadmissible. The court did not rule on the merits of the claim but determined that the plaintiff must provide admissible evidence to support his claim for damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.