Paviello and Paviello

In the matter of *Paviello and Paviello*, Henderson J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was required to determine whether certain affidavit and oral evidence provided by Mr B Paviello concerning his interests in specific properties and trusts should be covered by a certificate pursuant to section 128(3) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The dispute arose in the context of proceedings numbered SYC3563/2014.

The central legal issue before the Court was the application of section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), specifically whether the evidence given by Mr Paviello regarding his interests in properties at 1 and 2 D Street, Suburb E, and in the Paviello Trust and R Trust, at the time of the earlier proceedings, qualified for a certificate under section 128(3). This section governs the use of evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible due to privilege against self-incrimination.

Henderson J reasoned that the evidence provided by Mr Paviello met the criteria for certification under section 128(3). The Court found that the affidavit evidence filed in compliance with a prior order and the subsequent oral evidence given in relation to that affidavit were indeed covered by the requisite certificate. Consequently, the Court ordered that the evidence given by Mr Paviello was evidence to which section 128(7) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) applies, meaning it could not be used against him in criminal proceedings, except in limited circumstances.