Bar-Mordecai v Attorney-General of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1303

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bar-Mordecai v Attorney-General of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1303 Hearing dates: 10/09/2013 Decision date: 11 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: Tender of letter dated 23 August 2013 rejected Catchwords: EVIDENCE - whether letter written in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute - Held to be inadmissible - no point of general principle Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 Cases Cited: Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd v Dennis Family Homes Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 276 Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] NSWCA 160 GPI Leisure Corporation (In Liq) v Yuill (1997) 42 NSWLR 225 Korean Airlines Co Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No.3) [2008] FCA 701 Silver Fox Co Pty Ltd v Lenards Pty Ltd (No.3) [2004] FCA 1570; (2005) 214 ALR 621 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Bar-Mordecai (P) Attorney-General of NSW (D1) TS (D2) Representation: Counsel: In Person (P) Mr K Oliver (D1) Mr K Ginges (D2) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (NSW) (D1) Armstrong Legal (D2) File Number(s): 2013/201207

Judgment 1The Court is presently hearing an application by Mr Michael Bar-Mordecai for leave, pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 ("VP Act"), to commence proceedings in the District Court of NSW. 2The proceedings are an appeal against an order made by Milledge LCM in the Local Court of NSW, which provided for the extension, for a period of 10 years, of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ("ADVO") which was due to expire on 23 October 2012. As well as the extension of the ADVO, the Local Court made a costs order against Mr Bar-Mordecai. 3In the present application, whilst Mr Bar-Mordecai was being cross-examined by Counsel for TS, one of the applicants in the Local Court proceedings, and the beneficiary of the costs order, Counsel tendered a letter written by Mr Bar-Mordecai on 23 August 2013. 4The admission of the whole of the letter into evidence was objected to by Mr Bar-Mordecai. He did not object to the formal parts of the letter, the subject matter heading nor the first paragraph. 5At the conclusion of argument, I rejected the tender of the whole of the letter. I indicated that I would deliver reasons for that rejection. The reasons which follow are those which caused me to reject the tender of the substantial part of the letter at this stage of these proceedings.