NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hamilton; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hamilton [2010] NSWSC 1142
HEARING DATE(S) : 30 September 2010
JUDGMENT DATE : 30 September 2010
JUDGMENT OF : Price J at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 30 September 2010
DECISION : 1. Admit documents 11 to 39. 2. Admit documents 40 to 59.
CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE - admissibility - coincidence evidence - whether significant probative value
LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 s 98(1)
CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings
CASES CITED : Harriman v R (1989) 167 CLR 590 Phillips v R [2006] HCA 4
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Jason Hamilton PARTIES : Karen Hamilton Peter Webb Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2007/263396; 2007/263397
Mr DA Smallbone and Ms LJ Freiwald COUNSEL : Mr K Ginges Mr D Lloyd Mr SR Donaldson SC and Mr G Ng
Gadens Lawyers (Commonwealth Bank of Australia) SOLICITORS : A. Luong & Associates (Jason Hamilton, Karen Hamilton) TressCox Lawyers (Peter Webb) Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
PRICE J
30 September 2010 2007/263396 COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA v JASON HAMILTON
2007/263397 COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA v KAREN MICHELE HAMILTON
JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff has given two notices to the third defendant that it intends to adduce coincidence evidence under the coincidence rule, section 98(1) Evidence Act 1995.
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