Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v AWB (Australia) Ltd

The matter before the court involved Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd, a pastoral company, and AWB (Australia) Ltd, a corporation involved in the wheat industry. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain affidavits under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of these documents in the context of a voir dire. The central legal issue was whether specific paragraphs of the affidavits complied with the requirements set out in sections 97, 55, 135(c), and Part 3.4 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to decide whether these paragraphs could be admitted as evidence under the various provisions of the Act.

The court meticulously examined each affidavit and the specific paragraphs in question. It found that certain paragraphs met the criteria for admissibility under sections 97 and 55, while others did not satisfy the requirements for admissibility under sections 135(c) and Part 3.4. The reasoning of the court was grounded in a detailed analysis of the content of the affidavits and their compliance with the relevant sections of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the court ruled that some paragraphs were provisionally admissible while others were not. This decision was made on the basis of the evidence presented during the voir dire held on 9 December 2008.

The court's final orders specified which paragraphs of the affidavits were provisionally admissible under the Act and which were not. Paragraphs 17, 19, 21, and 22 of the affidavit of James Vickery, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Duncan Rowland's affidavit, paragraphs 6 and 8 of Edward Gillogly's affidavit, and paragraph 4 of Kevin Roberts' affidavit were deemed admissible under section 97. Conversely, paragraphs 1 to 16, 18, and 20 of James Vickery's affidavit, paragraphs 1 to 3 of Duncan Rowland's affidavit, paragraphs 1 to 5, 9, and 10 of Edward Gillogly's affidavit, and paragraphs 1 to 3 of Kevin Roberts' affidavit were admitted under section 55. The court also ruled that paragraphs 23 to 26 of James Vickery's affidavit, paragraph 6 of Duncan Rowland's affidavit, and paragraphs 7 and 13 of Edward Gillogly's affidavit were not to be admitted as evidence of reliance under section 135(c). Additionally, paragraphs 28 to 41 of James Vickery's affidavit and paragraph 7 of Duncan Rowland's affidavit were found not to be admissible as admissions under Part 3.4.