SCHOREL & SCHOREL (No.2)

In *Schorel & Schorel (No.2)*, Obradovic J of the Family Court of Australia considered an evidentiary ruling concerning the admissibility of a document sought to be tendered. The dispute involved the admissibility of this document during the re-examination of a witness.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the document in question could be admitted during re-examination, given the limitations imposed by the *Evidence Act* on such proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine if the document arose out of the witness's cross-examination and whether it met the criteria for admissibility as an exception to the hearsay rule and the opinion rule.

Obradovic J reasoned that re-examination is strictly confined to matters arising from cross-examination, aiming to clarify or complete any picture left inaccurate or unclear by that process. The court found that the document sought to be tendered did not arise from the limited cross-examination that had occurred. Furthermore, the document was deemed inadmissible hearsay, as no exception to the hearsay rule was established. Additionally, it constituted inadmissible opinion evidence, with no applicable exceptions to the opinion rule being made out.