Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 8) [2013] NSWSC 187

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 8) [2013] NSWSC 187 Hearing dates: 25 February 2013 Decision date: 18 March 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: Evidentiary rulings as provided in the reasons for judgment. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - evidence - early rulings on the evidence pursuant to s 192A Evidence Act. Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Cases Cited: Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 7) [2013] NSWSC 139 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Mathew Chaina (First Plaintiff) and ors Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (First Defendant) and ors Representation: Counsel: J Maconachie QC & J Sharpe (Plaintiffs) R Stitt QC, G L Turner & H Stitt (Defendants) Solicitors: Berrigan Doube Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Curwoods Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2002/69354

Judgment 1This judgment deals with the supplementary statements of George Chaina of 13 July 2012 and with the statements of Rita Chaina. It should be read in connection with my earlier judgment dealing with objections to the evidence of George Chaina: Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 7) [2013] NSWSC 139. Many of the objections taken to the statements of Rita Chaina are similar in substance to those taken to George Chaina's statements.

1. Supplementary statement of George Chaina dated 13 July 2012 re Statement of 2 September 2005 Paragraph number Category of Objection Ruling 3, 5, 7, 9, 11(b), 13(b), 14(b) and (c), 17, 18, 20, 21(b), 23(b), 24(b), 25, 26, 27, 28(b), 31, 32 - last sentence Form, hearsay, speculation, no primary facts stated, conclusion, opinion, expert evidence, witness has not adopted the Expert Witness Code of Conduct Paragraphs 3, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected as expert evidence which do no comply with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct nor with the principles in Makita. Paragraph 27(b) is rejected for the same reason that the evidence in paragraph 27 of the Statement of 2 September 2005 was rejected - the evidence is not probative of any matter in issue. Paragraphs 13 and 14(b) and (c) are rejected - form. Paragraphs 17, 18, 20 and 21(b) are rejected as conclusions and expert evidence. Paragraphs 23(b) and 24(b) are rejected as conclusions. Paragraph 5 is rejected as expert evidence. Paragraphs 26 and 27 are rejected as hearsay and by reason of their form. Paragraph 28(b) is rejected - form. Paragraphs 31 and the last sentence of paragraph 32 are rejected - form.