Mundine v Brown (No 3)

Mundine v Brown (No 3) involved the dispute over the admissibility of certain documents tendered as business records. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Mundine, sought to introduce notes taken by a delegate at a forum on domestic violence as evidence. The defendant, Brown, objected to the admission of these documents on the grounds that they were not properly characterised as business records under the Evidence Act 1995.

The court was required to determine whether the notes in question were business records for the purposes of s 69(1) of the Evidence Act. This involved examining whether the notes were kept "in the course of, or for the purposes of, a business" when they were taken. A critical issue was whether the delegate who took the notes was employed by the putative business or was acting in a personal capacity. Given that the delegate was not employed by the business, the court had to assess whether the notes could still be considered business records if they were primarily taken for the delegate's personal use.

The court concluded that the notes could not be considered business records for two main reasons. First, the delegate was not employed by the business, and second, the primary purpose for which the notes were taken was for the personal use of the delegate. As a result, the court rejected the tender of the documents as business records under the Evidence Act 1995. This decision highlights the importance of the relationship between the person who took the notes and the business, as well as the purpose for which the notes were taken, in determining their admissibility as business records.

The court's decision ultimately meant that the tendered documents could not be used as evidence in the case. This outcome underscored the necessity for businesses to ensure that records are kept in a manner that aligns with the requirements of the Evidence Act, particularly when they intend to rely on them in legal proceedings.