Svajcer v Woolworths Ltd (Ruling)

The case of Svajcer v Woolworths Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Svajcer, was an employee of Woolworths Ltd, and the dispute arose from allegations of theft and dishonest conduct while in the employ of Woolworths. The primary legal issues before the court were whether evidence of the plaintiff’s prior criminal convictions should be excluded, and whether the trial should be heard by a judge alone rather than a jury. The plaintiff argued that the evidence of prior convictions was unfairly prejudicial and should not be admitted, while Woolworths contended that the evidence had significant probative value.

The court carefully considered the principles surrounding the admissibility of prior criminal convictions under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). It held that while such evidence could be prejudicial, its probative value in establishing the plaintiff's character and propensity for dishonest conduct outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court found that the evidence was not so unfairly prejudicial as to warrant exclusion under section 137 of the Act. However, the court recognised that the nature of the evidence could potentially prejudice a jury unduly, leading to an unfair trial. Consequently, the court ordered that the trial should be conducted before a judge alone, as this would mitigate the risk of prejudice and ensure a fair assessment of the evidence.

In summary, the court ruled that evidence of the plaintiff’s prior criminal convictions could not be excluded but recognised the need for a judge-alone trial to prevent potential jury bias. The court ordered that the trial proceed before a judge without a jury, ensuring a fair and impartial determination of the case.