McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 2]

In the case of McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 2], the plaintiff, McKay, brought proceedings against the Commissioner of Main Roads, seeking compensation for land taken for roadworks. The dispute involved the admissibility of certain documentary evidence, including completed survey responses and a report outlining the results of a survey, under the provisions of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), specifically section 79C. The key legal issues the court had to determine were whether the completed survey responses constituted business records of the business conducting the survey, whether they were statements made by qualified persons, and whether a report whose author was deceased should be rejected under section 79C(6). The court also needed to consider the admissibility of evidence that was post-taking and whether it could be used to rebut conclusions based on pre-taking information.

The court found that the completed survey responses were indeed business records of the business conducting the survey, as they met the criteria under section 79C(2a) of the Evidence Act. These records were considered genuine and were found to be admissible as evidence. The court also concluded that the survey responses were statements made by qualified persons, satisfying the requirements of section 79C(1) and (2). However, regarding the report whose author was deceased, the court held that such a report should not be rejected outright under section 79C(6) but should be assessed on its merits to determine its admissibility. The court further ruled that evidence considered post-taking could not be used to rebut conclusions based on pre-taking information, thereby upholding the objection to certain parts of the evidence presented by the defendant.

The court's final orders included the admission of the completed survey responses and the report as admissible evidence, subject to the court's satisfaction of their genuineness and relevance. The court also ruled that evidence considered post-taking could not be used to challenge conclusions based on pre-taking information, thereby limiting the scope of rebuttal based on subsequent data.