Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case) (Ruling No 2) [2021] FCA 1210 File number(s): VID 23 of 2021
Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J
Date of judgment: 4 October 2021
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – conditional exclusion of evidence by the tendency rule – whether proposed evidence is tendency evidence and therefore prima facie inadmissible under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - whether the evidence is evidence of a system or practice and therefore outside s 97 – whether the court thinks that the evidence will have significant probative value per s 97(1)(b) – where no notice was given of intention to adduce tendency evidence as required by s 97(1)(a) – application made to dispense of notice requirement under s 100 – held that the evidence was tendency evidence – held that the evidence would not have significant probative value – held that in any event, the requirement of notice would not be dispensed with – objection upheld.
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 55, 97 and 100 Evidence Regulations 2018 (Cth) s 7
Cases cited: Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 263 CLR 338 Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2000] FCA 1886; 106 FCR 51 R v Gordon (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 312 R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of hearing: 21-23 September and 4-7 October 2021
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Follett
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate