Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd

Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd is a case that deals with the admissibility of evidence in the form of an affidavit sworn by Bernard John Lloyd, an employee of Allphones Retail Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around whether certain statements made in the affidavit can be considered admissions by Allphones, given that it is a corporation and cannot express opinions or have a mind of its own. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of Lloyd's affidavit as an admission by Allphones. The central legal issue was whether the statements in Lloyd's affidavit, specifically paragraphs 7 and 8, could be treated as admissions by Allphones under sections 81 and 82 of the Evidence Act. The court considered whether the quality of Lloyd's evidence was such that it could not be treated as an admission and whether the vagueness of certain statements precluded their use as evidence.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that a corporation can only act through its agents, who may attribute knowledge or state of mind to the corporation based on their actions or statements. The court held that Lloyd's evidence could be treated as an admission by Allphones because it demonstrated an intention to affirm or acknowledge the existence of certain facts. The court emphasised that the admissibility of an admission does not depend on the source of the party's knowledge but on the intention to affirm or acknowledge the facts. While the vagueness of some statements might affect their weight, it did not prevent their reception into evidence as admissions. The court concluded that the challenged paragraphs in Lloyd's affidavit were capable of being admissions by Allphones, but it did not rule on the potential prejudice to Allphones at that stage. The court ordered that the application to tender Lloyd's affidavit be stood over for further hearing to allow for a more comprehensive exploration of the circumstances and potential prejudice.