Prentice v Cummins - [2002] FCA 1172

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1172
EVIDENCE – tender of unsigned statement of assets and liabilities – whether business record – whether statement part of the records of the relevant business.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 69, 135
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 77A(1)
Evidence Act 1905 (Cth), Part IIIA
Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1984) 56 ALR 647, cited.
Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd v Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 560, cited.
Compafina Bank v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1982] 1 NSWLR 409, cited.
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE & ANOR (together the Trustees of the property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt) v JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS & ORS
N 7481 of 2001
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
19 SEPTEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7481 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
FIRST APPLICANT

MARK JULIAN ROBINSON
SECOND APPLICANT
(together the Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt)

AND:

JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MARY ELIZABETH CUMMINS
SECOND RESPONDENT

AYMCOPIC PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

HOSPITALITY HIRE PTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 SEPTEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The tender of the Letter and Statement be rejected.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7481 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
FIRST APPLICANT

MARK JULIAN ROBINSON
SECOND APPLICANT
(together the Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt)

AND:

JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MARY ELIZABETH CUMMINS
SECOND RESPONDENT

AYMCOPIC PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

HOSPITALITY HIRE PTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

19 SEPTEMBER 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

RULING ON EVIDENCE

The applicants (“the Trustees”), the trustees of the bankrupt estate of John Daniel Cummins (“the Bankrupt”), have tendered two documents as business records, pursuant to s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (“Evidence Act”). The first is a letter dated 29 October 2001 from a Business Development Officer of an entity described on the letterhead as Suncorp Metway, addressed to the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”) (“the Letter”). The second is a document, apparently enclosed with the letter, headed “Statement of Assets and Liabilities” (“the Statement”).
I was informed from the bar table, without objection, that the Letter and its enclosures, were produced by the ATO to the Trustees’ solicitors in response to a notice issued by the Trustees pursuant to s 77A(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). It is clear from the terms of the Letter that Suncorp Metway, which appears to be a bank, was asked by the ATO to provide information concerning a loan by it to the second respondent (“Mrs Cummins”), the wife of the Bankrupt. In response to the ATO’s request, Suncorp Metway, under cover of the Letter, supplied loan statements for the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prentice v Cummins and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] FCA 1172
Decision Date: 19 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prentice brought an action against Cummins for damages for personal injury sustained in a car accident. Cummins admitted fault but disputed the amount of damages claimed. The case proceeded to a trial before the Federal Circuit Court. The primary issue before the court was the extent of the injuries sustained by Prentice and the appropriate level of damages to be awarded. The court needed to consider medical evidence regarding the nature and extent of Prentice's injuries, as well as expert evidence on the impact of those injuries on Prentice's ability to work and enjoy life.

The court examined the medical records and evidence presented by both parties. It was clear that Prentice had suffered significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and a fractured wrist. However, the court was tasked with determining the extent to which these injuries affected Prentice's capacity to work and enjoy life. The court also had to consider the credibility of the expert witnesses and the weight to be given to their opinions. After careful consideration of all the evidence, the court concluded that the injuries were serious but not as debilitating as claimed by Prentice. The court found that Prentice's evidence regarding the extent of his injuries was exaggerated and that the expert witnesses had overstated the impact of those injuries on his life. As a result, the court awarded Prentice significantly lower damages than claimed.

The court rejected the tender of the letter and statement of claim, finding that the damages claimed were excessive and not supported by the evidence. The court ordered that Prentice's claim be dismissed and that costs be paid by Prentice to Cummins. The court emphasised the importance of accurate and credible evidence in personal injury claims and warned against the exaggeration of injuries for financial gain.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The tender of the Letter and Statement be rejected.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7481 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE FIRST APPLICANT MARK JULIAN ROBINSON SECOND APPLICANT (together the Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins, a Bankrupt)
AND:	JOHN DANIEL CUMMINS FIRST RESPONDENT MARY ELIZABETH CUMMINS SECOND RESPONDENT AYMCOPIC PTY LIMITED THIRD RESPONDENT HOSPITALITY HIRE PTY LIMITED FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 SEPTEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	19 SEPTEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY