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

Case [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

Details
AGLC
SMA Solar Technology AG v Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1017
Case
[2012] FCA 1017
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between SMA Solar Technology AG, a German corporation with an Australian branch, and Beyond Building Systems Pty Ltd, an Australian company involved in the solar energy industry. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, focusing on the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence in the form of a printed web page. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the Federal Court should use its discretion under section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to exclude the evidence due to the poor quality of the printout.

The central legal issue was whether the Federal Court had the discretion to exclude evidence that was poorly printed, potentially compromising its legibility and reliability. The court had to consider whether the evidential value of the printout would be substantially outweighed by factors such as the difficulty of reading the text, the potential for confusion, and the possibility of prejudice to a party. The court also needed to assess whether the poor quality of the printout could be mitigated through alternative means, such as obtaining a clearer version of the web page.

The court examined the provisions of section 135 of the Evidence Act, which allows a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the court. The Federal Court held that the discretion to exclude evidence should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the poor quality of the evidence significantly undermines its reliability and utility. The court found that while the printout was indeed difficult to read, it was not so severely compromised that its exclusion was warranted. The court concluded that the evidence could be admitted with appropriate safeguards, such as providing a clearer version of the web page to assist in its interpretation.

In light of this reasoning, the court ordered that the printout be admitted as evidence, subject to the condition that a clearer version of the web page be provided to facilitate its examination and interpretation. This outcome ensured that the evidence could be utilised in the proceedings while mitigating the risks associated with its poor quality.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.