Spedding v State of New South Wales

In the case of Spedding v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff sought to rely on evidence filed in other proceedings in support of his claim against the State of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the evidence should be admitted because it was relevant to the issues in the case. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's attempt to rely on the evidence in this case was an attempt to tender it in this proceeding, which would be contrary to UCPR 31.9. The defendant also argued that the documents were subject to a Harman undertaking and therefore could not be relied upon.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's attempt to rely on the evidence in this proceeding constituted an attempt to tender the evidence, which would be contrary to UCPR 31.9. The court was also required to determine whether the documents were subject to a Harman undertaking and therefore could not be relied upon. The court considered the relevant provisions of the UCPR and the nature of the evidence that the plaintiff sought to rely upon. The court found that the plaintiff's attempt to rely on the evidence in this proceeding did not constitute an attempt to tender the evidence, and therefore did not offend UCPR 31.9. The court also found that the documents were not subject to a Harman undertaking and could be relied upon.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's reliance on the evidence in this proceeding was permissible and that the evidence could be considered by the court in determining the issues in the case. The court also ordered that the documents were not subject to a Harman undertaking and could be relied upon. The court further ordered that the case proceed to trial on the merits.