Evidence Act for Allstate Life Insurance Co.- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theEvidence Act for Allstate Life Insurance Co. Answer: Lightgow City Council v Jackson[1] talks about the admissibility of an evidence in accordance with section 78 of the Evidence Act, 1995[2]. The mentioned section provides that the evidence must be such that it is necessary to obtain an adequate understanding of the perception of the matter or event. Whenever a rule is applied on an opinion, it cannot be done so by excluding the opinion which is crucial to the event, that is, the evidence of the person seeing or hearing or perceiving a certain matter. The case dealt with the admissibility of an impugned representation and whether the representation led to the conclusion of causation. Another issue discussed in the landmark judgment was whether the impugned representation made an opinion. To make an opinion or representation admissible in court, it is important that 78(a) is satisfied. That is, the person making the opinion and his form, what he saw, construed from the context of the situation and what he saw, heard or perceived from t he matter or event. The court held that section 78 should be read as an exception to the rule of exclusion and it should not be read as to nullify any rule of exclusion. Section 76, Evidence Act, 1995[3]- Opinion Rule-This rule states that any evidence of an opinion will not be admissible in court to prove existence of any fact and also about the existence of a matter about which the opinion was expressed. Under common law, there is specific definition of opinion but in the case of Allstate Life Insurance Co. v Australia And New Zealand Banking Group Ltd[4], this definition was altered to include an inference which has been obtained through observation of communicable data. Court had made significance reliance on the definition of opinion in the Lightgow City Council v Jackson case. Sherrardv Jacob[1965] NI 151 [5]talks about the admissibility of opinion of lay persons. This case held that opinion expressed by a person based on his human experience, like the age, mental condition of the person can be admissible in court but that does not save he opinion from being challenged in cross-examination. Section 165 of the Evidence Act[6] talks about the unreliability of an evidence and the instances when the evidence cannot be tenable. This unreliability applies in cases of admission of evidence. Evidence might be unreliable for a number of reasons, like the inability to recall the facts, poor light, bad memory, mental state etc. This is an exception to the rules of evidence and the admissibility of opinion. Directions to Jury: in the cases of application of an evidence under section 165 of the Evidence Act, a warning is given to the jury to ensure that no vexatious evidences are admitted in court. Sometimes the opinions given are inadmissible in court for want of credibility and authenticity. The directions given to the jury to ensure that proper checking is required before taking into consideration any evidence is a common law mandate. Australian Law is heavily influenced by common law and therefore the legislations are to safeguard the interest of the parties and preventing the jury from admitting into court any evidence which is not reliable. Evanescent to remember was a term specifically coined by judges in the landmark judgment of Lightgow City Council v Jackson to strike out instances when the evidence given were not reliable enough and had faded from the memory of the witness. Admissibility concerns itself with the idea to deal with evidences that could not be recollected by the person giving the evidence and thus affects the admissibility of the same. Applying the above rules of Evidence Act to the present case, it is important to understand the facts of the case in the light of admissibility of the opinion given by the barman on duty. The question in the present case is regarding the admissibility of the log record which was supposed to be maintained by the barman. In the given case, Simon is accused of assault at a bar which is owned by Fred. As per the instructions of the bar owner, it was the duty of the barman to enter in his log any major incident that occurs. The barman has made an entry in his own handwriting in the log but he has been untraceable ever since. The entry in the log book says: 10 February 2018, 11.30: Fight broke out between Mark and Simon. Mark pulled the first punch not Simon From this statement, it is not clear when Simon assaulted Mark or not because the log only mentions about the first punch that was initiated by Mark. Applying section 76, it is clear that this impugned representation cannot be considered evidence and cannot be made admissible in court because the representation does not constitute an opinion. Bibliography Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 5) (Allstate Judgment No 32) (1996) 64 FCR 73 Evidence Act, 1995 Lightgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352; [2011] HCA 36. Sherrardv Jacob[1965] NI 151