Singh v Kaur [1997] FijiLawRp 38; [1997] 43 FLR 269 (3 October 1997)

[1997] 43 FLR 269

HIGH COURT OF FIJI ISLANDS

BALJEET SINGH

v

SUBINDAR KAUR

[HIGH COURT, 1997 (Lyons J) 3 October]

Appellate Jurisdiction

Evidence: Civil- recognition of foreign decree of divorce- comparison of handwriting by Resident Magistrate- examination of document not properly before the Court.

A resident magistrate hearing a contested application for recognition of a foreign decree of divorce examined a document for the purpose of comparing handwriting and as a result of the examination made a finding of fact. On appeal the High Court HELD: (i) that although the evidence of an expert is not essential when hadwriting is to be compared, the issue between the parties was so serious that an expert should have been called and (ii) that a Court should not make use of a document not placed before it by the parties without affording counsel the opportunity to address the Court on the evidential value of the document.
 
Cases cited:
 

Arnold v Norris  [1936] SASR 287

Bater v. Bater  [1950] 1 All ER 458

Briginshaw v. Briginshaw  [1913] HCA 32;  16 CLR 336

Cavanett v. Chambers  [1968] SASR 97

Chiman Lal v. Pan Bai C.A. 48/81- FCA Reps 81/144

C. Valentine v. Donnan C.A. 38/81- FCA Reps 81/157

Gronow v. Gronow  [1979] HCA 63;  144 CLR 513

House v. R  55 CLR 505

Jai Prakash v Savita Chandra ( C.A. 37/85- FCA Reps 85/156)

Miller v. Ministry of Pension  [1947] 2 All ER 372

R v. O’Sullivan  [1969] 2 All ER 237

R v. Rickard  (1919) 13 Cr. App. R. 140

R v. Smith (1909) 3 Cr. App. 87

R v. Tilley  [1961] 1 All ER 406

Shameem Mohammed v R