FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fubilan Catering Services Limited v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4)

[2006] FCA 447

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – witness statements – objections as to admissibility – motion to strike out parts of statements – rulings as to admissibility in advance of trial – strike out order inappropriate

FUBILAN CATERING SERVICES LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA), MINERAL RESOURCES STAR MOUNTAINS LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA) v COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 683 125), EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA) and COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 683 125), EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA) and COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM) v MOROCCO HOLDINGS PTY LTD and WILLIAM FENWICK

WAD 252 OF 2003

FRENCH J

26 APRIL 2006

PERTH

ON THE RESPONDENTS’ AND CROSS-CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FILED 10 FEBRUARY 2006, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The witness statements filed by the applicants and cross-claimants will be admissible in evidence subject to those parts of the statements which have been found to be inadmissible in the Reasons for Judgment published today.

2.         The costs of the motion be reserved.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON OBJECTIONS TO

PROPOSED EVIDENCE IN APPLICANTS’ AND CROSS RESPONDENTS’ WITNESS STATEMENTS

Introduction

1                     On 10 February 2006 the respondents and cross claimants in these proceedings filed a motion seeking to strike out parts of witness statements filed by the applicants and cross-respondents.  The motion is based upon various objections as to admissibility of the evidence which it is proposed to adduce from the witnesses in question. 

2                     The respondents and cross-claimants have prepared a convenient schedule of their objections, which also summarises the applicants’ response to the objections.  In dealing with the objections I will briefly state my conclusions.  There is a large number of objections. 

Rulings on objections

3                     Statement of Bill Menim

            Par 55                                     Objection upheld – inadmissible opinion as to state of mind of persons other than witness.

            Par 68                                     Objection upheld as to all words after ‘Eurest’.

            Par 70                                     Objection upheld

            Par 71                                     Objection upheld

4                     Statement of John Atmeyok

            Par 22                                     Objection overruled as to first sentence.  Objection upheld on second sentence after ‘I was not happy’.

            Par 23                                     Objection upheld – this is a statement about ‘the purpose’ of the contract.  It does not purport to go to reliance.

            Par 24                                     Objection upheld as to all words after ‘prepared a report’.

            Par 25                                     Objection upheld

            Par 27                                     Objection upheld

5                     Statement of William Boas

            Par 28                                     Delete ‘we’, substitute ‘I’.  May give evidence of things said which support the conclusionary statement.

            Par 43                                     Objection upheld – this is a statement about ‘the intention’ of an agreement.

            Par 53                                     Objection overruled – compendious reference to statements at meeting but requires elaboration to be given any weight.

            Par 56                                     Objection overruled but statement requires elaboration to be given any weight.

6                     Statement of Kuma Aua

            Par 20                                     Objection overruled – explanation of his understanding.

            Par 33                                     Objection overruled – this is explanatory of the witness’s views as a director of OTML and secretary for the Department of Mining.

            Par 35                                     Objection overruled – statement of existence of documents which has been identified by reference to their content.

            Par 37                                     Objection upheld – as to statement of OTML’s approach.  Statement re future role of business owners is admissible.

            Par 38                                     Objection upheld as to last sentence.

            Par 39                                     Objection upheld – assumes admissibility of intention of MRSM and is otherwise argumentative.

            Par 41                                     Objection upheld – the position of the OTML Board is not a matter of inference for a witness, it is a matter of  evidence either by way of resolution or some other indicator in evidence from which the Court may draw an inference.

7                     Statement of Samson Buretam

            Objection is taken to the tender of the entire statement of Mr Buretam as he has died since signing it.  His evidence may, subject to compliance with the requirements of s 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act), be received under an exception to the hearsay rule.  I would therefore not uphold the objection to the statement on the basis simply that its maker is deceased.  The question whether the evidence should otherwise be excluded pursuant to the discretion conferred on the Court by s 135 of the Act is left open at this stage as it has not been the subject of any submissions.  I also leave open for further submissions the weight which should be given to any part of this statement which is not corroborated by other evidence.

Subject to those general observations I rule on objections taken to specific paragraphs in the statement as follows:

Par 35                                       This is admissible as going to the state of mind of Mr Buretam.

Par 40                                       Admissible as to state of mind of witness but not otherwise.

Par 52                                       Admissible only as to recommendation of Ronald Kolalio.  The balance is inadmissible second order hearsay.

Par 53                                       Inadmissible.  Apparently second order hearsay. 

Par 81                                       First and last sentences are inadmissible as conclusionary.

Par 83                                       Evidence inadmissible as conclusionary.

8                     Statement of Burt Uglinga

            Par 14                                        The second sentence is admissible as evidence of the fact of the preparation of the report but not as evidence of overcharging.  The third sentence is admissible as evidence of Mr Uglinga’s state of mind linking to subsequent action.

            Pars 18 and 19                           Admissible as evidence of historical background to subsequent events.

            Pars 32 and 33                           Inadmissible – no apparent relevance.

            Par 45                                        Admissible as relevant to subsequent action taken by witness as OTML Executive Manager.

            Par 49                                        Admissible – goes to state of mind of witness – no prejudice.

            Par 53                                        Last sentence – inadmissible comment.

            Par 54                                        Admissible as explaining subsequent action and not as proof of truth of comments.

            Par 58                                        Inadmissible as conclusionary.

            Par 60                                        Admissible – evidence of instruction to Terupo Apoki.  Admissible only to show instruction given.

            Par 61                                        First sentence admissible as to state of mind of witness.  Second sentence admissible as to commercial reality perceived by witness.

            Par 68                                        Admissible on basis of witness’s experience as to OTML Executive Manager.

            Par 72                                        Admissible as evidence of the state of mind of the OTML Executive Officer.

            Par 74                                        Admissible as evidence of the state of mind of the OTML Executive Officer.

9                     Statement of Melvin Yalapan

            Par 30                                        First sentence admissible to prove that statement made but not as to proof of statement.

            Par 36                                        Statement of belief admissible to prove state of mind of witness.

            Par 39                                        Inadmissible comment.

            Par 40                                        The words ‘and the Board’ inadmissible as hearsay and otherwise opinion of the state of mind of other members of the Board.

            Par 41                                        Admissible only as to witness’s state of mind.

            Par 70                                        Admissible, albeit would require elaboration to be given any weight.

            Par 75                                        Inadmissible as expression of opinion only.

            Par 76                                        The words ‘on the part of the Board of MRSM’ are inadmissible as opinion and/or hearsay.

            Par 82                                        The statement of a breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence is admissible as reflecting the state of mind of the witness.  The words ‘there has remained a lack of transparency and …’ are inadmissible.

            Par 83                                        Inadmissible comment.

            Par 86                                        Last sentence inadmissible comment.

10                 Statement of Madiu Andrew

            Par 51                                        Admissible as explaining sequence of events and state of mind of witness not as to truth of report.

            Par 52                                        Inadmissible as hearsay.

            Par 84                                        Inadmissible in form.

            Par 85                                        Admissible subject to production of document.

11                 Statement of Michael Baitia

            Par 22                                        Second sentence inadmissible.

            Par 49                                        Inadmissible.  Requires statement of content rather than characterisation thereof. 

            Par 91                                        Last three lines inadmissible.

            Par 92                                        Second sentence inadmissible.

            Par 94                                        Second sentence only inadmissible.

            Par 99                                        Relevant to explain action taken by witness (see par 100) but otherwise not evidence of the existence of problems.

            Par 101                                      Admissible on the same basis.

            Par 102                                      Inadmissible comment.

12                 Statement of Lee Yekim

            Par 35                                     Admissible as to witness’s state of mind.

            Par 36                                     The words ‘because of the problems’ are inadmissible.

            Par 39                                     Second sentence inadmissible hearsay.

            Par 40                                     Admissible if letter produced.

13                 Statement of David Kaiankim

            Par 30                                     The words ‘which dealt with problems in relation to the management of the contract by Eurest’ are inadmissible.

14                 Statement of Tony Itulam

            Par 18                                     Admissible under s 63 as to the first sentence.  Second sentence comment inadmissible.

            Par 20                                     Inadmissible as to form.

15                 Statement of Jerry Musolok

            Par 11                                     Second sentence inadmissible hearsay.

            Par 12                                     Inadmissible – no relevant representation- apparent statement of opinion by witness.

            Par 13                                     Inadmissible hearsay. 

            Par 16                                     Inadmissible in the form in which it is put.

16                 Statement of William Fenwick made on 1 September 2005.

            Par 41                                     Evidence about content of document inadmissible unless supported by production of document.

            Par 43                                     Admissible if document is produced.

            Par 57                                     Admissible as linked to par 56 and reflecting state of mind of witness.

            Par 77                                     Inadmissible after the words ‘Michael Baitia’.

            Par 113                                   Inadmissible unless document produced.  Otherwise admissible to explain next action of witness.        

            Par 128                                   Inadmissible to the extent that it refers to the concerns of another.  Admissible in first person singular.

17                 Statement of Ronald Kolalio

            Par 11                                     Admissible to explain recommendation but not as to the quality of the management reports.

18                 Statement of Fred Nana

            No outstanding objection.

19                 Statement of Les Fereday

            Par 38                                     Inadmissible comment.

            Par 45                                     Inadmissible up to the word ‘Poon’s’.

            Par 46                                     Admissible – no apparent dispute.

            Par 67                                     Admissible if document produced.

            Par 68                                     Admissible if document produced.

            Par 84                                     Inadmissible – no factual foundation has been laid for this evidence.  The fact that the witness had some relevant experience between 1980 and 2000 does not expose the factual grounding for the estimates offered.

20                 Statement of Greg McGrath

            No outstanding objections.

21                 Statement of Aleena Bird

            The greater part of this statement does not appear to be relevant.  The applicants’ response to the objections raised against it do not address the issue of relevance.  The statement will not be admitted in its present form unless relevance is first demonstrated.

22                 Statement of Francis Kaupa

            Par 27                                     Relevance is not demonstrated.

23                 Statement of William Fenwick dated 22 November 2005

            Par 23                                     Deleted by concession.

            Par 28                                     Admissible.

            Par 35                                     Admissible subject to production of documents.

            Par 41                                     Admissible.

            Par 50                                     Inadmissible comment and/or hearsay.

            Par 56                                     Admissible as explanatory of witness’s recommendation.

            Par 60                                     Admissible subject to production of document.

            Par 75                                     Admissible as to fact of discussion.

            Par 84                                     Admissible as to fact of discussion.

            Par 85                                     Inadmissible as statement of opinion.

            Pars 86 to 92                           Admissible as to facts of discussions.

            Par 98                                     Sentence in parentheses inadmissible as comment – conceded.

            Par 104                                   Inadmissible hearsay unless relevance demonstrated.

            Par 121                                   The words in parentheses are inadmissible as comment – conceded.

            Par 122                                   Admissible.

            Par 126                                   The words in brackets are inadmissible as comment – conceded.

24                 Statement of Lee Yekim of 30 November 2005

            Par 6                                       Admissible if document produced.

            Par 10                                     Admissible subject to relevance.

            Par 11                                     Admissible subject to relevance.

            Par 12                                     Admissible as to state of mind of witness.

            Par 14                                     Admissible going to state of mind of witness and subject to relevance.

25                 Statement of John Atemeyok dated 30 November 2005

            Par 5                                       Last sentence inadmissible as comment.

            Par 7                                       Inadmissible as argument and comment.

            Par 8                                       Admissible subject to relevance.

26                 Statement of William Fenwick dated 2 December 2005

            Par 4                                       Admissible.

            Par 7                                       Admissible subject to relevance.

27                 Further witness statement of John Atemeyok dated 30 November 2005(3025 PRF006).

            Par 5                                       Admissible.

            Par 7                                       Admissible.

28                 Statement of Lee Yekim dated 30 November 2005

            Par 5                                       Admissible.

            Par 6                                       Inadmissible comment.

29                 Statement of Bill Menim dated 30 November 2005

            Par 9                                       Admissible as to his non-involvement in the negotiations with OTML or Eurest.

Conclusion

30                  For the preceding reasons the various parts of the applicants’ and cross-claimants’ witness statements found to be inadmissible will not be admitted into evidence.  The respondents seek a ‘strike out’ of the various elements of the witness statements.  That is not appropriate.  It is sufficient to say that if tendered those parts of the witness statements will not be received in evidence.  An order to that effect will be made.  The question of the costs of the motion will be reserved.

Associate:

Dated:              26 April 2006