ICM Investments Pty Ltd v San Miguel Corporation [Ruling No. 1]

ICM Investments Pty Ltd sued San Miguel Corporation in the Supreme Court of Victoria over a dispute concerning an investment agreement. The case centred around the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence, particularly hearsay and opinion evidence, under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The primary legal issue before the court was whether the business record exemption under section 69 of the Act applied to the representation in question, and whether the opinion evidence contained within the witnesses' meeting notes could be admitted under section 78 of the Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if the business record was admissible under the hearsay exception when the precise authorship was not established.

The court examined whether the representation was a hearsay statement and whether it complied with section 78 to be admitted as evidence. The court referred to Bastein JA's comments in Jackson v Lithgow City Council and held that the rule excluding evidence of opinion did not apply to certain non-expert opinions. The court held that the representation and the asserted fact relied upon were not defined in the case. The court was unable to apply the statutory exceptions to hearsay and determine the admissibility of the business record in these circumstances, even though it was potentially relevant. As a result, the business record was not admitted into evidence. However, the court held that the meeting notes containing opinion evidence were admissible for a limited purpose under section 78 of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the business record exemption under section 69 of the Act did not apply to the representation in question because the precise authorship was not established. Consequently, the business record was not admitted into evidence. However, the court held that the witnesses' meeting notes containing opinion evidence were admissible for a limited purpose under section 78 of the Act. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the admissibility of evidence in this case.