Legal Research
Cases
Roach v Page (No 15)

Roach v Page (No 15)

Case [2003] NSWSC 939 20 October 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.15) [2003] NSWSC 939

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

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 October 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

DECISION: See paragraph 14 of the judgment.

CATCHWORDS: Evidence - meaning and ambit of the word "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995 - whether the section applies to an article in a trade journal - application of ss 135 & 136

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s60, s69, s77, s135, s136

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 Defendants

- 4 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW…

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.

Continue reading Roach v Page (No 15)

Details

AGLC: Roach v Page (No 15) [2003] NSWSC 939
Case: [2003] NSWSC 939
Decision Date: 20 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings arose from a dispute between the parties concerning the construction of an easement in relation to a property. The parties were involved in an interlocutory application, which was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought an order for the defendant to provide records in their possession or control. The defendant contested the application, arguing that the requested records were not subject to the court's order. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court had to determine whether the section applied to an article in a trade journal.

In considering the matter, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including ss 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court noted that the term "records" in s69 was not defined in the Act, and therefore, it was necessary to give the word its ordinary meaning. The court found that the term "records" included documents or writings that contained information, and it could include articles in trade journals. However, the court also noted that the term "records" did not include all publications, and it was necessary to consider the context in which the term was used. The court concluded that the term "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995 was intended to cover documents or writings that contained information that was relevant to the issues in the proceeding.

Based on the court's interpretation of the term "records," the court found that the article in the trade journal was not subject to the order for production. The court held that the article was a publication and not a document or writing that contained information that was relevant to the issues in the proceeding. Therefore, the applicant's application for an order for the production of the article was dismissed. The court further held that the defendant was not required to provide the article in their possession or control.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the application. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the term "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995 and its application to the facts of the case. The court's reasoning and outcome provide guidance to practitioners in relation to the scope of the term "records" in the Evidence Act 1995 and the application of ss 135 and 136.

Orders