Abstract
The Rus v Comcare cases arise from a claim for compensation by the widowed Ms Rus. The cases saw a highly contentious piece of evidence tendered. This evidence was hearsay of a lay opinion that answered the ultimate issue. The evidence was considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) and the Federal Court of Australia (‘Court’). These considerations demonstrate the uncertainty of how the rules of evidence are applicable in tribunals. Specifically, the cases raise applicability of the rules against opinion and hearsay evidence. Further, the relevance of delay and the parol evidence rule to these cases is raised. The principles and policies governing these issues are analysed, which warranted minimal if any discussion in the cases, to assist practitioners in similar cases.
Recommended Citation
Cardaci, Nicholas
(2017)
"Rus v Comcare: The Rules of Evidence in the AAT,"
The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review: Vol. 19
, Article 7.
Available at:
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/undalr/vol19/iss1/7