Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Jones v Dunkel is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning inferences that may be drawn when a party fails to give evidence. The case is notable for having originated 'the rule in Jones v Dunkel'; an important rule in Australian civil procedure. [1] [2]
On the standard of proof applicable under the Marriage Act 1928 (Vic), the lower court's finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude Mrs Briginshaw was adulterous, should be upheld Briginshaw v Briginshaw [ 1 ] (often known simply as Briginshaw ) is a 1938 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered how the requisite ...
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22, 141 CLR 54 (HCA), is an Australian evidence law case, in which the admissibility of improperly gained evidence is examined. Like the similar R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, Bunning v Cross, the ruling of the High Court of Australia has been formulated as an exclusionary rule, namely the onus is on the accused to prove the misconduct and justify exclusion, [1] and ...
Australian rule of evidence is a mixture of statute and common law, [18] together with the rules of court. [19] It has a uniform Evidence Act (UEA or the "Act") that consists of Acts of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory.
The rule has been adopted in most common law countries, including South Africa, Australia and Fiji, and it remains one of the primary rules of consideration during cross-examination. In Australia the rule in Browne v Dunn overlaps with section 46 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
According to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), evidence is relevant if it has the "tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." [9] Federal Rule 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded "if its ...
In Queensland, the rules were intended to be "uniform, so far as practicable, for all three courts in the State stream" [5] – that is, to unify the procedure of the Supreme, District and Magistrates Court, not participate in a cooperative federalism effort like the Uniform Evidence Acts.
The statement of these general principles is easy, but it is obvious that it may often be very difficult to draw the line and to decide whether a particular piece of evidence is on the one side or the other. [1] Evidence of similar facts can only be admitted both if it is relevant, and its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.