//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1995] FCA 1060
Federal Court of Australia
1995-11-28
Burchett J, Mr J, Sackville JJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) NG 197 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: NEWS LIMITED Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED AND OTHERS Respondents CORAM: Burchett J. PLACE: Sydney DATE : 28 November 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Gyles seeks to tender two statements of a Mr J E Pollard, who describes himself as a professional author, editor and sports historian. Mr Gyles says the relevance of his evidence relates to the proposition that there is nothing unusual about a sporting code in which there is a break away from the principal organisation administering the sport. He says that that proposition is not put forward as some kind of argument from similar fact evidence, but its relevance is to any suggestion that the natural order of things in a sporting code requires it to have only one true administrator. It seems to me that, to the extent to which this general proposition may be sought to be advanced in argument at the end of the case, there are well‑established rules in relation to the doctrine of judicial notice. These rules require natural justice to be taken into account, so that a judge does not generally take judicial notice of a matter except where the parties are both timeously and clearly informed that the matter may be taken into account, but subject to those rules, reference can be made to standard works of history and similar sources of information. So far as the material is sought to be adduced as evidence, it seems to me that Mr Spigelman's objection must be upheld. A number of witnesses who could have been asked about aspects of this evidence have already been examined, and had left the witness box before the evidence was even foreshadowed, and by now a great deal of the hearing has passed by. I accept Mr Spigelman's submission that he and those instructing him should not have to deal with the various matters raised in these statements at this stage of the hearing, and that if I were to admit the evidence, it would involve a possible expansion of issues at much too late a stage. It would make the hearing more complex, and it would impose strains on the ability of the opposing parties to deal with the case properly, as well as some strains on the court itself. Those aspects of a comparable application were regarded as properly requiring its rejection in Russell Fraser Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (Full Federal Court, Davies, Tamberlin and Sackville JJ., 16 June 1995). Accordingly, I reject the statements now sought to be introduced. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burchett.