Kim v Lee & Ors (No 2)
Case
•
[2006] NSWSC 1212
•13 November 2006 ex tempore
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kim v Lee (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 1212
[2006] NSWSC 1212
13 November 2006 ex tempore
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the third defendant was the agent for the first and third to thirty-second defendants in relation to defamation actions in the District Court. They also sought an alternative declaration that the third defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff and indemnify the plaintiff for any damages awarded against them in the District Court proceedings. The first and second defendants, and the fourth to thirty-second defendants, opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff's affidavit did not provide sufficient evidence of the third defendant's actual or ostensible authority. The first and second defendants, and the fourth to thirty-second defendants, also argued that the evidence was not admissible against them.
The court considered the legal principles regarding the admissibility of evidence of an agent's authority, including the distinction between actual and ostensible authority. The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit contained sufficient evidence of the third defendant's actual authority to act on behalf of the first and thirty-second defendants. The court also found that the evidence was admissible against the first and second defendants, and the fourth to thirty-second defendants, as it was relevant to the issue of whether the third defendant had ostensible authority to act on their behalf. The court rejected the argument that the evidence was inadmissible as it was hearsay, finding that it fell within an exception to the hearsay rule.
The court made a declaration that the third defendant was the agent for the first and third to thirty-second defendants in relation to the defamation actions in the District Court. The court also made an alternative declaration that the third defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff and indemnify the plaintiff for any damages awarded against them in the District Court proceedings. The first and second defendants, and the fourth to thirty-second defendants, were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
The court considered the legal principles regarding the admissibility of evidence of an agent's authority, including the distinction between actual and ostensible authority. The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit contained sufficient evidence of the third defendant's actual authority to act on behalf of the first and thirty-second defendants. The court also found that the evidence was admissible against the first and second defendants, and the fourth to thirty-second defendants, as it was relevant to the issue of whether the third defendant had ostensible authority to act on their behalf. The court rejected the argument that the evidence was inadmissible as it was hearsay, finding that it fell within an exception to the hearsay rule.
The court made a declaration that the third defendant was the agent for the first and third to thirty-second defendants in relation to the defamation actions in the District Court. The court also made an alternative declaration that the third defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff and indemnify the plaintiff for any damages awarded against them in the District Court proceedings. The first and second defendants, and the fourth to thirty-second defendants, were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Agency
-
Representation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Kim v Lee (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 1212
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0