IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 197 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED
Applicant
AND:AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED AND OTHERS
Respondents
CORAM: Burchett J. PLACE: Sydney DATE : 28 November 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BURCHETT J.:
Mr Gyles seeks to tender two statements of a Mr J E Pollard, who describes himself as a professional author, editor and sports historian. Mr Gyles says the relevance of his evidence relates to the proposition that there is nothing unusual about a sporting code in which there is a break away from the principal organisation administering the sport. He says that that proposition is not put forward as some kind of argument from similar fact evidence, but its relevance is to any suggestion that the natural order of things in a sporting code requires it to have only one true administrator.
It seems to me that, to the extent to which this general proposition may be sought to be advanced in argument at the end of the case, there are well‑established rules in relation to the doctrine of judicial notice. These rules require natural justice to be taken into account, so that a judge does not generally take judicial notice of a matter except where the parties are both timeously and clearly informed that the matter may be taken into account, but subject to those rules, reference can be made to standard works of history and similar sources of information.
So far as the material is sought to be adduced as evidence, it seems to me that Mr Spigelman's objection must be upheld. A number of witnesses who could have been asked about aspects of this evidence have already been examined, and had left the witness box before the evidence was even foreshadowed, and by now a great deal of the hearing has passed by. I accept Mr Spigelman's submission that he and those instructing him should not have to deal with the various matters raised in these statements at this stage of the hearing, and that if I were to admit the evidence, it would involve a possible expansion of issues at much too late a stage. It would make the hearing more complex, and it would impose strains on the ability of the opposing parties to deal with the case properly, as well as some strains on the court itself.
Those aspects of a comparable application were regarded as properly requiring its rejection in Russell Fraser Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (Full Federal Court, Davies, Tamberlin and Sackville JJ., 16 June 1995). Accordingly, I reject the statements now sought to be introduced.
I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burchett.
Associate:
Date: 6 December 1995
Details
AGLC
Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health [1995] FCA 1060
Case
[1995] FCA 1060
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Court of Australia, sitting in Sydney, dealt with an application by Mr. Gyles, representing the News Limited, to tender statements from Mr. J. E. Pollard, a professional author, editor, and sports historian, in the case against the Australian Rugby Football League Limited and others. Mr. Gyles intended to use Pollard's statements to support the argument that breakaways from the principal organisation administering a sport are not unusual. The respondents, represented by Mr. Spigelman, objected to the late introduction of this evidence. The court needed to determine whether the evidence could be admitted under the doctrine of judicial notice and whether it should be considered at that stage of the proceedings.
Justice Burchett addressed the application by considering the rules of judicial notice, which require natural justice to be taken into account. The judge noted that the evidence was not being introduced as an argument from similar facts but rather to counter any suggestion that a sport must have only one true administrator. However, Justice Burchett also considered the timing and the potential for complicating the case. Given that several witnesses had already been examined, and a significant portion of the hearing had passed, the judge was concerned that admitting the evidence at that stage would unnecessarily expand the issues and impose strains on the opposing parties and the court itself. Justice Burchett referenced the Full Federal Court's decision in Russell Fraser Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd, which rejected a similar application, to support his decision.
In conclusion, Justice Burchett rejected the application to introduce Mr. Pollard's statements. The judge reasoned that admitting the evidence at that late stage would be unfair and would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings, potentially impacting the ability of the parties to properly deal with the case and imposing additional strain on the court. Justice Burchett certified that the reasons for judgment were accurately transcribed and dated the decision on 6 December 1995.