Maria Saravinovska v Krste (Chris) Saravinovski; Chris Saravinovski v George Saravinovski (No 3)

Maria Saravinovska initiated proceedings against Krste (Chris) Saravinovski, and Chris Saravinovski commenced a separate proceeding against George Saravinovski. Both cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The consolidated cases involved disputes concerning the validity of a will, the distribution of an estate, and allegations of undue influence and forgery. The court had to determine whether certain evidence was admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

The court considered whether evidence presented by Chris Saravinovski was relevant and admissible. The key legal issue was whether the evidence proposed by Chris would cause undue waste of time, as stipulated by section 135(c) of the Evidence Act. The court had to weigh the relevance of the evidence against the potential for it to lead to tangential inquiries or distractions from the central issues of the case.

In its decision, the court examined the nature of the evidence proposed by Chris Saravinovski. It concluded that the evidence was not relevant to the central issues of the case and was likely to lead to a significant waste of time if admitted. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible under section 135(c) of the Evidence Act. The court's reasoning focused on the need to maintain the efficiency of the proceedings and avoid unnecessary digression.

The court ordered that the evidence proposed by Chris Saravinovski be excluded from the proceedings. This decision was made in the interest of ensuring that the case proceeded in a timely and efficient manner, focusing on the central issues of will validity, estate distribution, and the allegations of undue influence and forgery.