Singh v Singh - [2007] NSWSC 1357

CITATION: Singh v Singh [2007] NSWSC 1357

HEARING DATE(S): 26/11/07, 27/11/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 November 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Paragraph of each of three affidavits rejected

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - hearsay - where deponent adopts whole content of another witness's affidavit - whether adopting statement admissible

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s.59

CASES CITED: Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 833
AWA Ltd v Radio 3XY Pty Ltd, unreported, NSWSC, 21 June 1991, McLelland J
Temple v Powell [2007] FCA 987

PARTIES: Shaun Jit Singh - First Plaintiff
Terlochan Singh - Second Plaintiff
Sukhdev Singh - Third Plaintiff
Balbir Singh - Fourth Plaintiff
Harmit Pal Singh - First Defendant
Sarwan Singh Khalah - Second Defendant
Pardeep Singh Gill - Third Defendant
Charan Singh - Fourth Defendant
Jaspal Singh - Fifth Defendant
Prabjeet Singh Anand - Sixth Defendant
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited - Seventh Defendant
North Shore Sikh Association of Sydney Incorporated - Eighth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5651/05

COUNSEL: Mr A.E. Maroya - Plaintiffs
Mr D.A. Smallbone/Mr A.K. Singh - 1st to 6th and 8th Defendants

SOLICITORS: The People's Solicitors - Plaintiffs
Harish Prasad & Associates - 1st to 6th and 8th Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2007

5651/05 SHAUN JIT SINGH & OTHERS v HARMIT PAL SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGMENT - On admissibility of paragraph, "I agree with the contents of his affidavit" in affidavits of Sukhdev Singh, Balbir Singh and Terlochan Singh, all affirmed on 18/2/07. See p71 of transcript.

1 A hearsay objection is taken by the defendants to one paragraph of each of three affidavits affirmed on 18 February 2007. They are the affidavits of three of the plaintiffs, Sukhdev Singh, Balbir Singh and Terlochan Singh. Each refers to an affidavit of another plaintiff, Shaun Jit Singh, of the same date which, obviously enough, was affirmed before the other three. I say this because each of the three deponents says that he or she has read the affidavit of Shaun Jit Singh sworn on 18 February 2007 and then goes on to say "I agree with the contents of his affidavit". This is the paragraph to which objection is taken.

2 The particular paragraph, as it appears in each of the three affidavits in question, is meaningful only when one has regard to what is said in Shaun Jit Singh's affidavit. He makes statements to the following effect in paragraphs 3 to 10:

(a) that he does not know and cannot accept that the board of trustees of the association was provided with applications from 47 persons seeking to become trustees of the association;

(b) that he notes that some of the applications annexed to some quite separate affidavit are for ordinary membership;

(d) that he does not admit that the board of trustees ever resolved upon a particular course of action in…

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 Singh v Singh

Details

AGLC: Singh v Singh [2007] NSWSC 1357
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1357
Decision Date: 27 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Singh, heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involved a dispute between two siblings over the interpretation of a will. The court was required to determine the admissibility of hearsay evidence provided by one party, who had adopted the entire content of another witness's affidavit. The primary legal issue was whether the adoption of another witness's statement constituted hearsay and, if so, whether it was admissible under the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The court examined the nature of hearsay and the conditions under which such evidence could be admitted. The judge concluded that the adoption of another witness's affidavit did indeed constitute hearsay. However, the court found that the statement was admissible under the hearsay exception for admissions by a party opponent. The court reasoned that since the party adopting the affidavit was also the deponent, the statement could be considered an admission by a party to the proceeding. The court held that the adoption of the affidavit was permissible, as it aligned with the established principles of evidence law.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the party who had adopted the other witness's affidavit, finding that the hearsay evidence was admissible. The decision underscored the importance of the hearsay rule and the exceptions that allow for the admissibility of such evidence under specific circumstances. The court's ruling clarified the application of hearsay exceptions in the context of affidavits and admissions by party opponents.

Orders