Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 21) [2013] NSWSC 1703 Hearing dates: 11 November 2013 Decision date: 11 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: Paragraphs 59 to 61 of Mr Dunbar's report of 20 December 2012 are now admitted into evidence. Catchwords: EVIDENCE - admissibility - rejected evidence - cross-examination making rejected evidence relevant Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Mathew Chaina (First Plaintiff) and ors Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (First Defendant) and ors Representation: Counsel: In person (Plaintiffs) R Stitt QC, G L Turner & H Stitt (Defendants) Solicitors: In person (Plaintiffs) Curwoods Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2002/69354 Judgment 1Paragraphs 59 to 61 of Mr Dunbar's report of 20 December 2012 were originally excluded by me as not being relevant to any issue in the matter. 2Mrs Chaina has now cross-examined Mr Dunbar about an alleged drop in sales said to be demonstrated by a comparison of the material in paragraph 17 and table 02 of that report (showing sales of $22 million in 1980) with an annual return of Ecolab of 1990, although that document has not yet been put into evidence. Nevertheless, Mr Dunbar agreed that the sales for that year were about $11.9 million. His explanation for the downturn was that Ecolab had sold off its domestic operations for $US350 million in 1987. 3The cross-examination concerning this issue has now made those paragraphs relevant, at least to his credit in the matter. Mr Dunbar had earlier given evidence that Ecolab did not have any decrease in sales staff during his period with that company. The Plaintiffs suggest that that evidence cannot be correct when sales decreased to that extent. Those paragraphs are therefore readmitted into evidence. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 November 2013