Roach and Ors v Page and Ors (No.26) - [2003] NSWSC 1045

CITATION: Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.26) [2003] NSWSC 1045

HEARING DATE(S): 4-8, 11-14, 18-21, 25-29 August 2003
1, 5, 9-12, 15-19 September 2003
13-17, 20-24, 27-30 October 2003
3-5 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 November 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

DECISION: See paragraph 1 of the judgment.

CATCHWORDS: Evidence - scope of s82(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s144
Supreme Court Act 1970, s82

CASES CITED: Ishac v David Securities Pty Ltd (Young J, 13 December 1991, unreported)
Williamson & Anor v Mig Aero Pty Ltd (McLelland J, 27 June 1990, unreported)

PARTIES :
Walter Edward Roach
Sydtech Pty Ltd
Winnote Pty Ltd
Brian John Downey Page, Peter Eustace Hollingdale, Roderick McLeod, Warren Francis Asprey, Ian Farley Hutchinson, Brian Edmond Thornton, Thomas Owen Jones, Geza Francis Kim Santow, Robert Colin Nicholls, James Henry Graham, Peter Short, Phillip Thornton Taylor, Bruce Kelvin Cutler, David Myles Bennett, John Charles Mulally, Kevin William Broadley, James Michael Page, Peter John Carney, Patricia Helen Brown, Brian John McFadyen, Robert Andrew Channon, Peter John Perry, Douglas Michael Franc, Peter Stanley Ridout, Michael John Gray, Howard Keith Chillingworth Steele, Julian Block, Elizabeth A Nosworthy, Edward Joseph Wright, Claire Grose, John Hugh Clifford Colvin, Bryan David Weir, George Thomas Forster, John Lindsay Arthur, Roy Merrill Randall, Anthony Jospeh Muratore, Sir Clarence Waldemar Harders, Peter Campbell Church, Terence Michael Burke, Richard Stuart Gray, John Kevin O'Sullivan, Gregory Stephen Pearce, Rebecca Anne Davies, John Martin Green, Gordon David Cooper, Pamela Gaye Edwards, Stephen David Chipkin, Yukio Hayashi, Lucy Kathleen Farrell, Paul Ashley Cooper, Graham John Kelly, Barry Leon Barker, Philip John Christensen, Fabian Gleeson, Helen Irwin Wright, Iain Ronald Jones, Shaun Gerard McGushin, Mark Russell Cohen, Joanne Christine Seve, Amanda Jane Harkness, John Pierce Angus, Cornelius Daniel Neil Griffin, Murray John Dearberg, Marc Sandford Hutchinson, Timothy Mark Hirshman, Leon Pasternak, Kevin Alan Lewis, Donald Bruce Robinson, Michael Perrin Ryland, Richard Randolph Pearson, Geoffrey Howard Levy, Geoffrey Alan McLellan, David Jacob Hammerschlag, Gavin Terence Bell, John Gilbert Tabernar, Michael John Back, Georgina Margaret Gray, Raymond Unyuen Ming Kwok, Michael Orlov, Bettie Anne McNee - t/a Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Brian David Kewley, Keith Alfred Robert Skinner, Jeffrey Stephen Kiddle, Denis James Davies, Davied Leonard Bailey, Martin Moule Hudson, Colin George Polites, Marcus Kirkland Fairbairn, John Alfred Emerson, James Macklin Pfeiffer, Russell David Allen, Peter Algernon Franc Hay, Paul Montgomery, John Balfour Blanch, Richard Geoffrey Eager, Peter Farley Mitchell, Peter Mark Butler, Simon Anthony Yencken, Rebecca Anne Davies, Paul Ashley Cooper, Peter William Stawell, Stephen Marcus Stern, John Lindsay Cooper, Graeme James Smith, Iain Ronald Jones, Rayne De Gruchy, Wayne McMaster, Graeme Ross Watson, Maxwell Douglas Ralph Cameron, Frank Barry, Irene Helen Zeitler - t/a Freehill Hollingdale & Page

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20950/97

COUNSEL: Mr S Rares SC with Mr A Bell for the Plaintiffs
Mr A Meagher SC with Mr M Darke for the Defendants

SOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the Plaintiffs
Allens Arthur Robinson 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 Roach and Ors v Page and Ors (No.26) 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: [2003] NSWSC 1045
Decision Date: 13 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roach and Others versus Page and Others, the dispute involved several parties and centred around the scope and application of section 82(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970. This legal action was heard and determined in a relevant Australian court. The case sought to clarify the interpretation and application of the specific statutory provision, which governs the admissibility of evidence in certain proceedings.

The primary legal issue that the court was required to decide was the precise extent and boundaries of section 82(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970. This section pertains to the admissibility of evidence, and the parties disagreed on its interpretation. The court needed to determine whether the provision applied in the specific circumstances of the case, and if so, how it should be applied.

The court carefully considered the statutory language, relevant case law, and legal principles governing the admissibility of evidence. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the provision did apply to the circumstances of the case. The reasoning provided by the court highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory language and the need to ensure that the evidence presented was relevant and reliable. Based on this analysis, the court decided in favour of the respondents, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought forth by the applicants was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was upheld. The court's ruling clarified the scope and application of section 82(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, providing guidance for future cases involving similar legal issues.

Orders