Did you know – that the doctrine of “Judicial Notice” allows a court to accept certain facts without requiring formal proof or evidence. The principle applies where the fact in question is so well known, indisputable, or readily verifiable that requiring evidence would serve no practical purpose.
The doctrine operates as a limited exception to the ordinary rule that facts must be proved by admissible evidence.
At common law, courts may take Judicial Notice of facts that are:
- notorious or generally known, such that reasonable persons would not dispute (facts that are common knowledge); or
- capable of immediate and accurate verification by reference to a document the authority of which cannot reasonably be questioned (facts drawn from authoritative documents).
In Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149; [1917] HCA 26, Isaacs J provided the guiding principle of the doctrine. Courts may take judicial notice of facts that are so generally known that every person of ordinary intelligence may be presumed to be aware of them.
In Australia, this principle is reflected in statutory form in section 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and equivalent State legislation, which permits courts to take judicial notice of matters that are either common knowledge or capable of verification from authoritative sources.
Facts that are Common Knowledge
Although Judicial Notice is narrowly applied, it arises regularly in litigation in the following contexts:
- Geographical facts (locations of cities and towns, major roads, rivers and landmarks).
- Calendar dates and public holidays.
- Legislative and governmental matters (Acts and subordinate legislation, practice directions, regulations).
- Matters of common human experience (laws of physics and nature).
Application of the doctrine is intended to be confined to facts that are beyond any dispute and should not be relied on where a matter may reasonably require evidentiary proof.
Facts Drawn from Authoritative Sources
Section 144(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) reflects the principle that proof is not required for knowledge that is capable of verification by reference to a document whose authority cannot reasonably be questioned.
Section 144(2) of the Act provides that a court may acquire such knowledge in any way it thinks fit, including by consulting authoritative sources directly. In practice, this allows a court to inform itself from reliable documents such as official publications, government records, or other materials whose accuracy is not reasonably disputed.
Section 144(4) of the Act provides a procedural safeguard whereby if a court proposes to take Judicial Notice of a matter under section 144, the court must give the parties an opportunity to make submissions about the matter and the source of the information relied upon.
Expert Evidence and the Limits of the Doctrine
The ability to accept recorded data, however, does not permit a court to draw specialised conclusions from that data without expert evidence.
In Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 the High Court considered the operation of expert opinion evidence, particularly the application of section 79 of the Evidence Act.
The High Court held that an opinion is only admissible if it is wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from training, study or experience. In essence, courts cannot draw technical conclusions from data where doing so requires scientific, technical, or other specialised knowledge.
Conclusion
Judicial Notice permits courts to accept indisputable or readily verifiable facts without formal proof, improving efficiency in litigation, however, while courts may accept recorded or commonly known facts, conclusions requiring scientific or technical reasoning must be established through expert evidence.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
