Legal Research
Cases
Roach v Page (No 27)

Roach v Page (No 27)

Case [2003] NSWSC 1046 13 November 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.27) [2003] NSWSC 1046

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
1-6 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 November 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

DECISION: Tender of the documents rejected.

CATCHWORDS: Evidence - the meaning & scope of business records in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995 - whether materials published at large for advertising and public relations purposes on a business's website qualify as business records

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s64, s69, s135, s136

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

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…

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 27)

Details

AGLC: Roach v Page (No 27) [2003] NSWSC 1046
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1046
Decision Date: 13 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Roach v Page (No 27), the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether certain materials published on a business's website could be classified as business records under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995. The dispute arose between the parties over the admissibility of evidence related to the operations of Page's business, with Roach seeking to rely on specific website content as business records. The court was required to interpret the scope of "business records" and assess whether the materials in question met the criteria set out in the legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether materials published at large for advertising and public relations purposes on a business's website qualified as business records under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court had to consider the legislative intent behind the provision and how it applied to modern digital business practices. Additionally, the court examined whether the materials were created or received in the ordinary course of the business and whether they documented the activities or circumstances of the business.

The court ultimately determined that the materials published on the business's website for advertising and public relations purposes did not qualify as business records under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court reasoned that the materials were not created or received in the ordinary course of the business but were instead produced for promotional purposes. Furthermore, the court found that the materials did not sufficiently document the activities or circumstances of the business, as required by the legislation. Therefore, the evidence was deemed inadmissible under the business records exception.

The court concluded that the materials published on the business's website for advertising and public relations purposes did not meet the criteria for business records under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995. Consequently, the court ruled that such materials could not be admitted as evidence in the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the specific requirements of the business records exception and the need for careful consideration of the nature and purpose of the materials in question.

Orders