SMA Solar Technology AG v Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd (No 3)

[2012] FCA 1017

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SMA Solar Technology AG v Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1017

Citation:		SMA Solar Technology AG v Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1017
Parties:		SMA SOLAR TECHNOLOGY AG and SMA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 127 198 761 v BEYOND BUILDING SYSTEMS PTY LTD ACN 128 030 302 and IPEVO PTY LTD ACN 143 970 978
File number:		NSD 817 of 2011
Judge:		PERRAM J
Date of judgment:		17 September 2012
Catchwords:		EVIDENCE – Admission of evidence – web page poorly printed out – whether discretion in s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) should be used to exclude evidence
Legislation:		Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135
Date of hearing:	17 September 2012
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the Applicants:	M Darke, H Pintos-Lopez
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the First Respondent:	The first respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	C Amato
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Addisons

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 817 of 2011

BETWEEN:

SMA SOLAR TECHNOLOGY AG
First Applicant

SMA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 127 198 761
Second Applicant

AND:

BEYOND BUILDING SYSTEMS PTY LTD ACN 128 030 302
First Respondent

IPEVO PTY LTD ACN 143 970 978
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	PERRAM J
DATE:	17 SEPTEMBER 2012
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The second respondent objects to the receipt into evidence of a printout of a website, which is contained behind Tab 51 of what is presently Exhibit 1. It is apparent that the printout from the website was produced on 21 July 2011 and has been brought about by simply pressing Ctrl–P, causing the document to be printed in that fashion rather than as a screen grab. The objection is taken that I should exclude the admission of the document pursuant to s 135 of the Evidence Act1995 (Cth) on the basis either that it is unfairly prejudicial to the second respondent or that it is misleading or confusing.

2. The point here is essentially that parts of the webpage are not necessarily legible and that, at least in relation to the use of the words ‘Sunny Roo’, there is a necessity to have an accurate and precise understanding of the context in which those words are used.  To the extent that there is a problem in that regard, I do not regard myself as unable to take into account the difficulties with the document and I cannot be satisfied, in those circumstances, that it is either unfairly prejudicial or misleading and confusing.  Matters might be otherwise if this were a jury trial.  I allow the document behind Tab 51.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:       20 September 2012