Source: http://farisqc.com/evidence/?cat=90
Timestamp: 2014-07-26 07:06:42
Document Index: 635778532

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3']

s. 190 | Faris QC – Australian Uniform Evidence Acts
Category Archives: s. 190
This entry was posted in !! Dictionary, s. 055, s. 056, s. 059, s. 060, s. 069, s. 071, s. 076, s. 078, s. 081, s. 082, s. 135, s. 136, s. 139, s. 166, s. 167, s. 168, s. 169, s. 183, s. 190 on 21/06/2014 by admin0.	Marshall v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2013] NSWSC 1935 (20 December 2013)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/1935.html
APPEAL – appeal from Local Court decision – costs – costs order – applicable principle – indemnity costs – applicable principle – Section 190 of the Evidence Act 1995 – no error established – orders
This entry was posted in s. 075, s. 190 on 06/02/2014 by admin0.	Regent Holdings v State of Victoria [2013] VSC 601 (7 November 2013)
This entry was posted in !! Part 3.03, s. 135, s. 136, s. 190 on 07/11/2013 by admin0.	LK v Commissioner of Police& Anor [2011] NSWSC 458 (20 May 2011)
This entry was posted in s. 004, s. 008, s. 190 on 04/11/2013 by admin0.	Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641 (28 June 2013)
This entry was posted in s. 075, s. 190, s. 191 on 17/08/2013 by admin0.	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v P. T. Garuda Indonesia (No 9) [2013] FCA 323 (11 April 2013)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/323.html
EVIDENCE – Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Whether expert on international transportation law qualified to give evidence on competition law – Whether expert on international transportation law qualified to give evidence on treaty construction
EVIDENCE – Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Proof of international law – Whether international law to be proved as a matter of law – Whether question of international law arising as part of foreign law to be proved as a fact or whether it should be excluded – Interaction between foreign, domestic and international law in evidence
This entry was posted in s. 135, s. 190 on 16/04/2013 by admin0.	Australian Communications and Media Authority v Bytecard Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1191 (22 October 2012)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1191.html
7. To the extent that it may be necessary to do so, I rely upon s 191(1), (2) and (3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), although I do not confine the basis upon which I have admitted Exhibit A to that section. Given that there is no real dispute as to the facts and matters proven by the documents contained in Exhibit A, I also propose to make an order pursuant to s 190(3) of the Evidence Act to the effect that Pts 2.2, 2.3 and 3.2 to 3.8 of the Evidence Act do not apply to Exhibit A. I note that the majority of the facts dealt with in Exhibit A have been admitted in the respondents’ Defence, in any event.
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 02/11/2012 by admin0.	R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146 (24 August 2012)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2012/146.html
CRIMINAL LAW – Special verdict – Not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 321 – Disposition under Crimes Act s 323.
CRIMINAL LAW – Words and phrases – Meaning of “violence” – Whether arson an offence of “violence” – Where no likely risk of harm to other persons. This entry was posted in s. 190 on 22/09/2012 by admin0.	Manday Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 3) [2012] FCA 751 (13 July 2012)
Thirdly, each case must be considered separately. No particular hard and fast rules can be set down, only general principles. One principle is that the moving party bears the onus of persuading the court that the opponent has no reasonable prospect of success (see Crayford Freight Services Ltd v Coral Seatel Navigation Co (1998) 82 FCR 328 at 333). As noted earlier, however, s 31A has lessened the standard that must be met. In that regard, it must be emphasised that once a moving party has established a prima facie case that the opponent has no reasonable prospect of success, the opposing party must respond by pointing to specific factual or evidentiary disputes that make a trial necessary; general or non-particularised denials will be insufficient to defeat the motion: see Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [22]. In other words, it is inappropriate in defence of a claim for judgment under s 31A of the [Act] to seek to defend by merely putting a claimant to formal proof: Vans Inc v Offprice.Com.Au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 137 at [12]. This is not a new concept. It finds earlier reflection in ss 190(4) and 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and O 33, 34 and 34B of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth). This entry was posted in s. 190, s. 191 on 24/07/2012 by admin0.	Campbell Street Theatre Pty Ltd (receiver and manager appointed) (in liquidation) & Ors v Commercial Mortgage Trade Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] NSWSC 669 (19 June 2012)
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 22/06/2012 by admin0.	R v Bul [No 2] [2012] ACTSC 65 (26 April 2012)
This entry was posted in s. 184, s. 190 on 09/06/2012 by admin0.	Tivo Inc v Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 252 (19 March 2012)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/252.html
TRADE MARKS – Whether respondents’ mark deceptively similar to applicants’ mark – Whether honest concurrent use – Whether use of respondents’ mark likely to deceive or cause confusion, because applicants’ mark had acquired reputation in Australia or due to convergence of goods sold under each mark – Whether discretionary factors justify maintenance of registration of respondents’ mark – Whether infringement of applicants’ trade mark – Whether second respondent liable as joint tortfeasor – Whether applicants’ or respondents’ mark should be removed from the Register due to non-use in respect of particular goods or services This entry was posted in s. 079, s. 140, s. 190 on 08/06/2012 by admin0.	LK v Commissioner of Police& Anor [2011] NSWSC 458 (20 May 2011)
This entry was posted in s. 004, s. 008, s. 190 on 03/01/2012 by admin0.	X v Sydney Children’s Hospitals Specialty Network & Anor (No 5) [2011] NSWSC 1351 (10 November 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/1351.html
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Expert evidence – Joint reports of experts – Whether reasons are required for agreement between experts – Procedural fairness
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 11(1), s 79, s 135, s 190, s 192
This entry was posted in s. 011, s. 079, s. 135, s. 190, s. 192 on 02/01/2012 by admin0.	Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Caporale Group Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1189 (18 October 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1189.html
CORPORATIONS – application to adjourn hearing of winding up proceedings – where no evidence of solvency
Evidence Act 1995 s 190(3)(b)
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 04/11/2011 by admin0.	Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v Abbott (No 4) [2011] FCA 950 (22 August 2011)
This entry was posted in s. 102, s. 106, s. 140, s. 190 on 30/08/2011 by admin0.	R v Ma [2011] ACTSC 126 (28 July 2011)
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming incapable during trial – disposition following non-acquittal – ancillary orders – accused ordered to submit to the jurisdiction of ACAT. This entry was posted in s. 184, s. 190 on 24/08/2011 by admin0.	R v Bauer [2011] ACTSC 127 (16 August 2011)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Pt 3.2, ss 65(1), 65(3), 116(1)(a), 116(1) (b), 165(1) (b), 190 This entry was posted in !! Part 3.02, s. 065, s. 116, s. 165, s. 190 on 23/08/2011 by admin0.	R v Fisher (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 100 (10 June 2011)
This entry was posted in s. 184, s. 190 on 09/06/2011 by admin0.	Starkey v State of South Australia [2011] FCA 456 (9 May 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/456.html
NATIVE TITLE – whether to order that a person cease to be a party to the proceeding – where party joined as of right by s 84(3) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – where party who was joined as a respondent was already a member of the native title claim group – where joined party contends that authorisation of applicant to act on behalf of the claim group pursuant to s 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) could not legitimately occur without his consent – party to cease being a respondent party as to remain as such will delay and interfere with progress towards consent determination – where concern about proper authorisation is better addressed by s 84D
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 09/06/2011 by admin0.	R v SH; R v Vaughan; R v Chifuntwe (No. 2) [2010] ACTSC 158 (16 December 2010)
This entry was posted in s. 048, s. 190 on 28/02/2011 by admin0.	Yarra Valley Dairy Pty Ltd v Lemnos Foods Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1367 (10 December 2010)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/1367.htm
TRADEMARKS – whether trade mark capable of distinguishing designated goods – geographic reference – description of style of goods – cancellation of trade mark – onus of proof – Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), ss 41, 88(2)(a), (e)
TORTS – passing off – whether there has been representation by the respondent to the public leading the public to believe the goods offered by the respondent are the applicant’s goods
TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – clear distinguishing features – Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 53
EVIDENCE – hearsay – ss 60, 136, 190(3) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
This entry was posted in s. 060, s. 136, s. 190 on 16/12/2010 by admin0.	NSW Crime Commission v Shane John Meads [2010] NSWSC 1145 (11 October 2010)
This entry was posted in s. 004, s. 190 on 13/10/2010 by admin0.	Huang v University of New South Wales [2010] FCAFC 104 (25 August 2010)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 27, 63, 63(2)(b), 67, 170, 173, 190(1)(b), 190(3), 190(4) This entry was posted in s. 027, s. 063, s. 067, s. 170, s. 173, s. 190 on 08/09/2010 by admin0.	SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 635 (25 June 2010)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/635.html
INCOME TAX- transfer pricing, methodology of transfer pricing, application of Div 13 of Pt III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, application of international tax treaties (Double Taxation Agreements), conferral of power by international treaties to impose tax, application of s 136AD(3) and (4), whether more than arm’s length consideration was given by the applicant, transfer pricing methods, comparable transactions. Middleton J
112. To the extent that any reliance was sought to be placed upon s 190 of the Evidence Act , I would not exercise my discretion to allow the evidence to be otherwise admitted into evidence, as the evidence is contested and is central to the consideration I must undertake to determine the primary issue in this case. The taxpayer has been aware in the preparation of this proceeding that the burden would be upon it to provide evidence in admissible form to the Court. None of the considerations referred to in s 190 would lead me to exercise my discretion to admit the evidence objected to by the Commissioner.
113. In relation to the objections taken to the evidence of Mr Seve, I accept that he was an expert witness, founded upon his experience in and knowledge of transfer pricing. An expert is entitled to rely upon the information of others, and his own assumptions, as long as these are clearly identified, and the opinion expressed is his or hers: see Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276. Contrary to the submission of the Commissioner, Mr Seve’s reliance upon others did not make his report a joint report of many authors (of the type referred to by Stone J in Cooke v Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1315; (2002) 51 ATR 223), as he was the sole author of the report and presented it as such to the Court.
114. However, and significantly in this proceeding, Mr Seve could not provide evidence as to the primary facts needed to properly undertake a CUP analysis or provide a comparative analysis. Like an economist, Mr Seve may be able to give evidence about markets and market behaviour generally, but in relation to specific markets and the comparable transactions primary evidence would be required.
115. As such, in this case, Mr Seve cannot give evidence of the factual elements of the CUP analysis which relate to economic comparability, comparability of goods, comparability of point in the chain where goods are sold, comparability of functions of the enterprise, comparability of terms and business strategies.
116. As a matter of procedure, pursuant to s 57 of the Evidence Act , the evidence of opinion could be admitted subject to evidence being admitted at a later stage in the proceeding proving the primary facts assumed by the expert. If by the end of the proceeding a fact upon which a particular opinion is based is not established, then the opinion has no weight.
117. Nevertheless, Mr Seve can provide expert evidence (like an economist) to assist the Court on comparability. However, even with this assistance, the Court has the ultimate task of considering the primary facts, and in this proceeding, determining the ultimate issue concerning arm’s length consideration in the context of the interpretation and application of Div 13.
118. In this regard, the comments of the Full Court of this Court in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCAFC 193; (2003) 131 FCR 529 have equal application to the present case:
[163] In concluding our findings in relation to s46, something should be said about the use of expert economic evidence in cases such as the present. The primary judge referred to the evidence of witnesses called in the cases, to writings on the topic by economists and lawyers, and to the discussion of economic theory in other judgments. The primary task of the Court, however, is to apply the words of the Act to the facts found on the evidence before it. These words involve some economic concepts and the application of the Act to the facts of a particular case may be informed by economic evidence or argument. But it is the language of the Act which defines the task that the legislature has set for the Court. To the extent that the statutory language conflicts with economic theory, the Court is bound to apply the Act.
119. Therefore, I regard the evidence of Mr Seve as expert evidence admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act , but only to be given weight to the extent admissible evidence is otherwise before the Court as to the necessary primary facts. On this basis, the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial to the Commissioner for the purposes of s 135 of the Evidence Act . Mr Seve has set out the information he had relied upon, his assumptions, and the instructions he was given to prepare his reports. The taxpayer does not rely upon Mr Seve’s evidence to prove the primary facts, and no order was required to be given pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act . This entry was posted in s. 057, s. 079, s. 135, s. 136, s. 190 on 05/07/2010 by admin0.	R v Steven Wayne Hillier [2010] ACTSC 33 (16 April 2010)
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – murder – circumstantial case – evidence of motive, opportunity and consciousness of guilt and DNA evidence – reasonable possibility of contamination of DNA evidence – consciousness of guilt evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt – verdict of acquittal entered.
EVIDENCE – burden of proof in relation to DNA evidence and consciousness of guilt evidence – proof beyond reasonable doubt required because of importance of evidence to Crown case.
EVIDENCE – waiver of rules of evidence under s 190 of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – tender of transcript of first trial. This entry was posted in s. 038, s. 135, s. 137, s. 190, s. 192 on 23/04/2010 by admin0.	Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1 (3 February 2010)
This entry was posted in s. 017, s. 190 on 03/02/2010 by admin0.	Sherman v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1026 (9 July 2008)
This entry was posted in s. 008, s. 048, s. 056, s. 059, s. 190 on 23/01/2010 by admin0.	Williams Advanced Materials, Inc v Target Technology Company LLC [2004] FCA 1405 (29 October 2004)
[2004] FCA 1405
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – PATENTS – novelty – reverse infringement – no suggested advantage or difference between materials in possible range – reverse infringement – equal in practical utility – clear directions in prior art to work within claimed ranges or proportions – no suggestion that specified proportions or ranges other than arbitrary – claim construction and disclosure in prior art a matter for expert evidence only to the extent of special meaning to skilled reader – obviousness – reliance on evidence of skilled worker with no common general knowledge in Australia for inventive step – mental logic of the notional team constituting the skilled addressee – evidence given without knowledge of the patent – no hindsight analysis – test in Astra – not a question of worthwhile to try – inventive step is the choice of metal alloys in the combination that was otherwise common general knowledge and acknowledged as known in the specification – no suggestion that initiation of inventive step in other than the choice of the new alloys for use in the reflective layers by reference to known requirements – dependent and omnibus claims – incorporates the invalidity of the independent claims to the extent of dependence on that claim – lack of sufficiency of description
COSTS – O 62 r 11(2) – gross sum – evidence of detailed bill of costs – no appearance by respondent – further expense and delay – success by applicant – award of costs – amount logical, fair and reasonable
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – default judgment – revocation of patent – patentee chooses not to defend patent monopoly – Federal Court Rules O 10 r 7(1)(b) – O 11 r 23(1)(b) – O 33 r 3 (repealed) – s 190(3) Evidence Act – discretion in s 190(3) applied – relevance of O 33 r 3 (repealed) to s 190(3) – translations of prior art Japanese patent not a certified translation
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 22/01/2010 by admin0.	Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 406 (31 March 2008)
[2008] FCA 406
TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct – where applicant sells and promotes energy drink overseas using certain mark – where respondent commences using that mark without licence to sell energy drink in Australia – where applicant does not conduct business in Australia but alleges that it has reputation amongst target market in Australia on basis of exposure of its mark and that consumers would be misled or deceived – cross-claim by respondent that it has established requisite reputation – whether either party has established sufficient reputation – establishment of date at which reputation should be assessed
TORT – passing off – where applicant sells and promotes energy drink overseas using certain mark – where respondent commences using that mark without licence to sell energy drink in Australia – where applicant does not conduct business in Australia but alleges that it has reputation among target market in Australia on basis of exposure of its mark – whether sufficient reputation established
EVIDENCE – hearsay – business records exception – where television ratings data is sought to be tendered – where data is produced by computer extrapolating human representation – whether data is hearsay – where data is produced by third party as a product of its business – whether data falls within business records exception – whether data should be otherwise admitted under discretion in s 190(3) of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 59(1), 69, 76, 79, 146, 190(3)
This entry was posted in s. 059, s. 069, s. 076, s. 079, s. 146, s. 190 on 22/01/2010 by admin0.	Official Trustee v Pastro [1999] FCA 1631 (26 November 1999)
[1999] FCA 1631
BANKRUPTCY – ss 120 and 121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – whether transactions voidable as against the Official Trustee – “purchasers or encumbrancers in good faith” – mortgages to secure debts – intent to defraud creditors – meaning of good faith – imputation of mental state – family relationship.
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 22/01/2010 by admin0.	IBM Global Services Australia Limited in the matter of an Application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition, against the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2005] FCAFC 66 (29 April 2005)
This entry was posted in s. 008, s. 048, s. 052, s. 157, s. 190 on 22/01/2010 by admin0.	Roach and Ors v Page and Ors (No.26) [2003] NSWSC 1045 (13 November 2003)
[2003] NSWSC 1191
registration indefeasible by title despite alleged fraud
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 21/01/2010 by admin0.	Clark v R [2008] NSWCCA 122 (30 May 2008)
[2008] NSWCCA 122
cross-examination of complainant
whether unrepresented accused should be required to provide written draft of proposed questions about complainant’s sexual reputation, experience or activity
court-appointed questioner
whether questioner should remain absent during complainant’s evidence-in-chief
whether accused should be required to provide before complainant gives evidence a written draft of questions proposed to be asked in cross-examination
data on computer hard drive but “deleted”
whether retrievable
whether accused knew of its existence or ability to be retrieved
whether correct test for intentional possession applied
Evidence Act 1995 ss94, 97, 98, 190(2)(b)
This entry was posted in s. 094, s. 097, s. 098, s. 190 on 10/01/2010 by admin0.	R v Ashton, Farmer and Randall [2003] TASSC 140 (4 December 2003)
[2003] TASSC 140
Criminal Law – Evidence – Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons – Impeachment of credit and admissibility of evidence as to credit – Other cases – What constitutes “unfavourable” evidence – Crown application for leave to question own witness as if cross-examining – Factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss38, 135, 136 and 190.
Adam v R [2001] HCA 57; (2001) 183 ALR 625, referred to.
R v Le [2002] NSWCCA 186; (2002) 54 NSWLR 474; R v Souleyman (1996) 40 NSWLR 712; R v Lozano (unreported, NSWCCA, 10 June 1997), discussed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [537]
This entry was posted in s. 038, s. 135, s. 136, s. 190 on 05/01/2010 by admin0.	Derek Gabriel v the Queen [1997] FCA 561 (25 June 1997)
This entry was posted in s. 097, s. 101, s. 102, s. 103, s. 104, s. 108, s. 110, s. 112, s. 135, s. 137, s. 190 on 05/01/2010 by admin0.	Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 364 (31 March 2006)
This entry was posted in s. 072, s. 135, s. 190 on 05/01/2010 by admin0.	Bropho v Western Australia [2005] FCA 941 (8 July 2005)
This entry was posted in s. 059, s. 072, s. 078, s. 155, s. 156, s. 157, s. 170, s. 171, s. 172, s. 190 on 03/01/2010 by admin0.	Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 (16 April 2009)
[2009] ACTSC 42
CRIMINAL LAW – assault – domestic violence – sentencing – non-conviction order – s 17 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – admissibility of evidence – s 4(2) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – relevant considerations – s 33 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – reasons for decision – use of victim impact statements
JUDICIAL REVIEW – refusal to adjourn to receive further evidence – denial of natural justice
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 4(1), 4(2), 190
This entry was posted in s. 004, s. 190 on 03/01/2010 by admin0.	Commissioner of Patents v Sherman [2008] FCAFC 182 (20 November 2008)
This entry was posted in s. 004, s. 008, s. 009, s. 048, s. 056, s. 059, s. 060, s. 076, s. 077, s. 079, s. 140, s. 190 on 03/01/2010 by admin0.	R v AN [2000] NSWCCA 372 (9 November 2000)
This entry was posted in s. 097, s. 098, s. 099, s. 101, s. 135, s. 137, s. 190 on 02/01/2010 by admin0.	Insurance Australia Limited [2004] FCA 524 (7 May 2004)
[2004] FCA 524
CORPORATIONS – application for Court’s confirmation of scheme by which part of insurance business of a general insurance company is transferred to another general insurance company – transfer of compulsory third party motor accident part of insurer’s business to that insurer’s parent – requirement of s 17C(2) of Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) that application for confirmation may not be ‘made’ unless conditions set out in that subsection have been satisfied – requirement of s 17E(2) of Act that application for confirmation must be ‘made’ in accordance with prudential standards of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority – whether word ‘made’ refers to filing of form of application in Court Registry or to hearing of application – whether expression ‘affected policyholder’ in s 17C extends to include (a) holders of other policies issued by ‘transferor insurer’ which are not being transferred under the scheme, and (b) existing holders of policies issued by ‘transferee insurer’ – whether non-compliance with s 17C goes to Court’s jurisdiction – discretionary considerations – whether order should be made under s 190(1) of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) permitting hearsay evidence to be adduced on final hearing.
INSURANCE – application for Court’s confirmation of scheme by which part of insurance business of a general insurance company is transferred to another general insurance company – transfer of compulsory third party motor accident part of insurer’s business to that insurer’s parent – requirement of s 17C(2) of Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) that application for confirmation may not be ‘made’ unless conditions set out in that subsection have been satisfied – requirement of s 17E(2) of Act that application for confirmation must be ‘made’ in accordance with prudential standards of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority – whether word ‘made’ refers to filing of form of application in Court Registry or to hearing of application – whether expression ‘affected policyholder’ in s 17C extends to include (a) holders of other policies issued by ‘transferor insurer’ which are not being transferred under the scheme, and (b) existing holders of policies issued by ‘transferee insurer’ – whether non-compliance with s 17C goes to Court’s jurisdiction – discretionary considerations – whether order should be made under s 190(1) of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) permitting hearsay evidence to be adduced on final hearing.
This entry was posted in s. 190 on 02/01/2010 by admin0.	Johnson & Page [2007] FamCA 1235 (18 October 2007)
This entry was posted in !! Part 4.01, s. 140, s. 190 on 02/01/2010 by admin0.	Leung v R [2003] NSWCCA 51 (1 May 2003)
[2003] NSWCCA 51
Attempt to obtain possession of narcotic goods
Prior entry into Australia using false name and documents
False banking and other documentation
Knowledge of goods in possession of accused
Suspicious circumstances combined with failure to make inquiry
Specific direction not required
Ambit of s 108(3) of Evidence Act 1995
Section 108(3) not limited to the particular witness in the witness box against whom relevant allegation made
Limitation on use of prior consistent statement admitted only under s 108(3)
Procedure to be adopted in relation to evidence concerning prior consistent statement
Role of Appellant more than mere courier, not mastermind but performing organisational role in relevant criminal enterprise
Evidence Act: ss 55, 66, 97(1), 100, 102, 103, 108(3), 112, 135, 137, 190(2), 192; Part 3.8
This entry was posted in !! Part 3.08, s. 055, s. 066, s. 097, s. 100, s. 102, s. 103, s. 108, s. 112, s. 135, s. 190, s. 192 on 02/01/2010 by admin0.	Anthony Gordon Oates v The Honourable Daryl Williams QC in his capacity as Attorney-General & Anor [1998] FCA 136 (27 February 1998)
This entry was posted in !! Part 3.02, s. 067, s. 190 on 02/01/2010 by admin0.	Edmunds-Jones Pty Limited and 1 Ors v Australian Women’s Hockey Association Inc [1999] NSWSC 285 (19 March 1999)
[1999] NSWSC 285
EVIDENCE – Hearsay rule and exception for business records – s69(3) of Evidence Act 1995 precludes exception where prepared for Australian proceeding – Application of s69(3) of Evidence Act 1995 where pre-existing computer stored material retrieved and other adjustments made in responding to subpoenas – Effect of s48(1)(d) and (e) of Evidence Act 1995 in relation to proof of documents retrieved from electronic storage – Discretion to permit waiver of rules of evidence under s190(3) of Evidence Act 1995 .
Evidence Act 1995 s48(1)(d) and (e); s69(3)(a); s190(3) and (4)
This entry was posted in s. 048, s. 069, s. 190 on 02/01/2010 by admin0.	Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd v Parnell Transport Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1580 (20 November 1998)