Legal Research
Cases
Young v Coupe

Young v Coupe

Case [2004] NSWSC 546 22 June 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Young & Anor v Coupe & 4 Ors [2004] NSWSC 546

HEARING DATE(S): 09/06/04-18/06/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: White J

DECISION: See Para 29 of Judgment

CATCHWORDS: Admissibility of evidence of valuation report when valuer not available for cross-examination - Limitation of use of report - Not as evidence of the truth of the facts stated in report or evidence of facts about the existence of which opinions stated in report.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No 11) [2003] NSWSC 907
Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Limited [2003] FCA 933
Ordukaya v Hicks [2000] NSWCA 180
R v Papakosmas (1999) 196 CLR 297
Bakerland Pty Limited v Coleridge [2002] NSWCA 30
ACCC v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1,269
Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371
Rawlinson's Australia Construction Handbook

PARTIES :
Kevin Young & Another
v
Paul Coupe & 4 Others

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2947/02

COUNSEL: Plaintiffs: I M Khan & P Menadue
Defendants 1-2: G Ellis
Defendants 3-5: S Epstein SC & C Dimitriadis

SOLICITORS: Plaintiffs: David Geddes
Defendants 1-2: Colin Biggers & Paisley
Defendants 3-5: Baron & Associates

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WHITE J

Tuesday, 22 June 2004

2947/02 KEVIN YOUNG & Another v PAUL COUPE & 4 Others

JUDGMENT – Admissibility of Exhibit 3D6

1 HIS HONOUR: Exhibit 3D6 is a valuation report dated 27 September 2001 prepared by Mr Andrew Parkinson, a certified practising valuer, of LandMark White (NSW) Pty Limited for Securcorp Limited. The report is a valuation as at 27 September 2001 of the property at 21-69 Regent Street Redfern. In the report Mr Parkinson assessed the market value “as is” of the property with existing DA consent exclusive of GST as being $5,000,000.

2 The report was tendered on 9 June 2004 on the hearing of the separate question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of its claim for relief against the third defendant. On that question it was relied upon by the third defendant. The report had as part of its annexures a photocopy of the contract for sale of the property signed by the vendors. In various places it referred to the existence of a contract for sale of the property dated 19 June 2001. It was relied upon by the third defendant to show that the purchasers had received the signed contract of sale from the vendors, which corroborated the evidence that contracts had been exchanged. It was also relied upon to show that the purchasers had evinced the intention to be bound by the contract.

3 The correctness of the valuation was not in issue on the separate question.

4 After I announced my decision on the separate question, I directed that the evidence led on that question would also be evidence on the remaining issues. I reserved the right to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Young v Coupe

Details

AGLC: Young v Coupe [2004] NSWSC 546
Case: [2004] NSWSC 546
Decision Date: 22 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Young v Coupe involved a dispute between the parties regarding the valuation of a property. The matter was brought before the court to determine the admissibility of a valuation report in the absence of the valuer who prepared it. The court was tasked with deciding whether the valuation report could be admitted as evidence when the valuer was not available for cross-examination. The central issue was whether the valuation report could be used to establish the truth of the facts stated in the report or as evidence of facts about the existence of which opinions were stated in the report.

The court held that a valuation report could be admitted in the absence of the valuer if certain conditions were met. However, the use of such a report was limited. It could not be used as evidence of the truth of the facts stated in the report or as evidence of facts about the existence of which opinions were stated in the report. Instead, it could only be used to assist the court in understanding the valuer's methodology and the basis of their opinion. The court further noted that the weight to be given to the report would depend on the circumstances of the case, including the reliability and credibility of the report and the availability of other evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of admissibility of expert evidence and the importance of cross-examination in testing the reliability of such evidence. The court concluded that while the absence of the valuer for cross-examination was a limitation, it did not necessarily render the report inadmissible. Instead, the court could consider the report as a tool to assist in understanding the valuer's opinion, provided that its limited use was recognised and the weight given to it was appropriate. The court's decision provides guidance to parties and courts when dealing with valuation reports in the absence of the valuer.

Orders