McGlashan v QBE Insurance Limited

McGlashan v QBE Insurance Limited involved the plaintiff, who sought to admit a prior consistent statement under s108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to rebut an allegation that his evidence had been reconstructed. The defendant insurance company opposed the admission of this evidence on several grounds. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prior consistent statement was admissible under s108(3) of the Evidence Act and whether the probative value of the statement was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the plaintiff under s135. The plaintiff argued that the prior consistent statement was relevant and admissible to counter the defendant's suggestion that his evidence had been reconstructed. The defendant contended that the statement should be excluded as it might unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

The court found that the prior consistent statement was relevant and admissible under s108(3) of the Evidence Act as it was suggested to the plaintiff that his evidence had been reconstructed. The court held that the probative value of the statement was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the plaintiff. The court acknowledged that the statement could potentially prejudice the plaintiff but found that its probative value outweighed this risk. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the plaintiff to rebut the allegation that his evidence had been reconstructed.

The court allowed the plaintiff to tender the prior consistent statement. The court did not make any further orders as the case proceeded to trial with the statement admitted as evidence.