LINFOX TRANSPORT (AUST) PTY LTD v ARTHUR YATES & CO LTD [2003] NSWSC 876

Reported Decision : 47 ACSR 261

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : LINFOX TRANSPORT (AUST) PTY LTD v ARTHUR YATES & CO LTD [2003] NSWSC 876 HEARING DATE(S) : JUDGMENT DATE : 2 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Brownie AJ DECISION : The records constituted by the monthly sales reports of Mr Humphreys are admissible under the provisions of section 1305 of the Corporations Act.

CATCHWORDS : Evidence - Documentary Evidence - Statutory Provisions relatng to business records - Corporations Act s1305 re financial records LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act s9, s1305, s1405 Evidence Acts69 Caratti v The Queen [2000] 22 WAR 527 CASES CITED : Manning v Cory [1974] WAR 60 Valoutin v Ferst [1998] 154 ALR 119 Van Reesema v Flavel [1989] 7 ACLC 972 PARTIES : LINFOX TRANSPORT (AUST) PTY LTD - Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant ARTHUR YATES & CO LTD - Defendant/Cross-Claimant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50125/00 COUNSEL : Mr S. Wilson, QC / G. L. Meehan - Plaintiff Mr R. Smith, SC / N. Kidd - Defendant SOLICITORS : Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Melbourne) - Plaintiff Coudert Bros (Sydney) - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY LAW DIVISION

BROWNIE AJ

2 April 2003

50125/00 LINFOX TRANSPORT (AUST) PTY LTD v ARTHUR YATES & CO LTD

JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: Through Mr Humphreys Yates has sought to tender a series of documents, each of which is entitled, "Monthly sales report", there being one for each of the months June 1999 to November 1999. I understand that it might turn out to be the case that these reports of Mr Humphreys will, in time, turn out to be relevantly indistinguishable from the reports of others, so that what I say now might be of assistance in ruling upon the reports of others holding generally similar positions to that held by Mr Humphreys, who was the sales manager for the Western Australian branch of Yates.