Oral admissions concerning a document's contents are generally irrelevant unless the relying party is entitled to give secondary evidence of those contents or the genuineness of a produced document is disputed. Proof of documentary contents through oral admission is therefore confined to these specified evidentiary situations.

Admissions may be proved against their maker or representative in interest, but ordinarily cannot be proved by or on their behalf. Proof by the maker is permitted where the statement would be relevant between third persons if the maker were dead, records a contemporaneous relevant state of mind or body supported by conduct making falsehood improbable, or is relevant independently of its character as an admission. Statements may also be admissible where they explain conduct influenced by facts in issue.

Admissions may arise from statements of a person expressly identified by a party as a source of information on a matter in dispute. Where that party directs another to obtain information from the identified person, that person's statement is treated as an admission against the referring party.

Admissions by persons whose position or liability must be proved against a party are relevant if the statements would be relevant against their makers in litigation concerning that position or liability, and were made while the position or liability subsisted. Thus, where a rent collector denies that rent was due, the tenant's acknowledgment of the rent debt is an admission relevant against the collector.

Section 18 recognises as admissions statements made by a party and by an expressly or impliedly authorised agent. Statements by a party acting in a representative capacity qualify only when made while that character was held. Statements made by persons with proprietary or pecuniary interests in the subject matter, and by persons from whom parties derive their interest, may constitute admissions when made during the continuance of the maker's interest.

Admission is a statement, whether oral, documentary, or contained in electronic form, that suggests an inference regarding a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Its character depends on its inferential connection to such facts and on its having been made by persons, and in circumstances, identified for that purpose. Electronic-form statements are included alongside oral and documentary statements.

Course-of-business evidence is relevant where the performance of a particular act is in issue. For correspondence, placement of a letter at the customary collection point, combined with the established practice of taking such letters to post, bears on dispatch. Due posting and absence of return through the Dead Letter Office also bear on whether the letter reached its addressee.

Section 15 makes a series of similar occurrences relevant where the issue is whether a disputed act was accidental or intentional, or was done with particular knowledge or intention. The occurrences must involve the person who performed the act and may support an inference concerning the character, purpose, or state of mind associated with the act in question.

Parallel insolvency proceedings against a principal borrower and its corporate guarantor raise the maintainability of commencing CIRP when CIRP against the guarantor is already pending. The issue concerns the scope of Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, together with the application of binding precedent and the per incuriam principle. Admission was refused and the civil appeal was dismissed.

Section 14 permits facts showing intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill-will, bodily condition, or bodily feeling where that state is in issue or relevant. The fact must relate to the particular matter, not merely establish a general character, habit, or disposition. Prior acts, communications, possessions, complaints, and surrounding circumstances may prove the relevant state of mind when specifically connected to the transaction or offence. Evidence of general criminal disposition, habitual negligence, or general violent conduct remains irrelevant.

Where a right or custom is in issue, relevant facts include transactions that created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted, denied or contradicted its existence. Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or exercised, or its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from, are also relevant. For a fishery right, this may include ancestral grants, mortgages, inconsistent later grants, prior exercise, and interference by neighbours.

Relevance of evidence in a suit claiming damages extends to any fact capable of assisting the court in determining the amount that ought to be awarded. The fact must tend to enable assessment of the appropriate quantum of damages and is relevant for the limited purpose of quantifying the damages claim.

Otherwise irrelevant facts become relevant when they are inconsistent with a fact in issue or relevant fact, or make the existence or non-existence of such fact highly probable or improbable. This includes facts showing the accused was elsewhere or sufficiently distant at the relevant time, and facts excluding other possible perpetrators.

Conspirator statements, acts and writings are relevant against every person believed to be part of a conspiracy where reasonable grounds support that belief. The material must relate to the common intention and arise after that intention was first entertained by any participant. It may prove both the existence of the conspiracy and a person's participation, including where that person was unaware of particular connected acts.

Explanatory and introductory facts are relevant where necessary to explain a fact in issue, support or rebut an inference, establish identity, fix time or place, or show the relationship between parties to a transaction. Their relevance is limited to what is necessary for that purpose. Contextual facts and accompanying statements may explain conduct or the nature of a transaction, while unrelated details remain irrelevant unless required to establish the necessary context.

Section 8 makes facts showing or constituting motive or preparation relevant to a fact in issue or relevant fact. Previous or subsequent conduct of parties, agents, or persons against whom an offence is the subject of proceedings is relevant where it influences or is influenced by such facts. Conduct generally excludes statements, except statements accompanying and explaining acts, or statements made to or in the presence and hearing of a person that affect relevant conduct. Relevant conduct may include evidence concealment, absconding, possession of crime-derived property, and prompt complaints concerning alleged offences.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge a GST assessment where the statutory appeal was not filed within the prescribed limitation or the further condonable period. Pandemic-related limitation protection and the special procedure permitting delayed appeals against specified assessment orders did not assist where neither route was used. In the absence of exceptional grounds such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or abuse of process, failure to pursue appellate remedies precludes writ intervention.

Relevance of facts includes facts that occasion, cause, or result from facts in issue or other relevant facts, including connected circumstances and opportunities for an occurrence or transaction. Illustrative relevant facts include a robbery victim's prior possession or disclosure of money, signs of a struggle near the place of a murder, and the suspected poisoning victim's prior health and habits known to the suspected actor where those habits created an opportunity to administer poison.

Same-transaction relevancy makes facts not in issue relevant where they are sufficiently connected with a fact in issue to form part of one transaction, notwithstanding differences in time or place. Relevant connected facts may include contemporaneous or closely connected statements and conduct during an assault, events forming part of a wider insurrection, related correspondence surrounding an allegedly libellous communication, and successive deliveries through intermediate persons.

Section 5 confines admissible evidence to facts in issue and other facts declared relevant, excluding matters outside those categories. Its scope is subject to applicable civil-procedure restrictions, and it does not permit proof of facts barred by those requirements. A party that fails to produce a bond at the first hearing may subsequently produce or prove its contents only in accordance with prescribed civil-procedure conditions.