A WhatsApp affidavit under the Evidence Act 1995
Australian courts presume records produced by a properly-working device are accurate (ss.146–147). Pair that presumption with a sworn affidavit and a SHA-256 hash in one court-ready PDF.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) · SHA-256 hash · one-time, no subscription
The problem
A screenshot isn't evidence
Sections 146–147 give you a rebuttable presumption that a device which ordinarily produces an outcome did so on this occasion - but you still need a deponent to authenticate the export by affidavit. This produces that affidavit.
wachattopdf.com produces the affidavit under Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss. 146–147, pre-filled with a SHA-256 hash of your export and the record's particulars - so the chat arrives court-ready.
Why a WhatsApp export can stand in for the phone - s 48 and the abolished original document rule
Australia is one of the most printout-friendly jurisdictions in the common-law world, and that is a matter of statute rather than judicial goodwill. Section 51 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - mirrored in the uniform Evidence Acts of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory - abolishes the common-law original document rule outright: the old principles about how the contents of a document must be proved no longer apply. In practical terms, nobody can object to a WhatsApp chat export merely because it is a copy rather than the phone itself. Section 48 then does the constructive work: a party may prove the contents of a document by tendering a copy produced by a device that reproduces the contents of documents - which is exactly what a structured PDF export of a chat thread is.
The uniform Acts also contain provisions written specifically for electronic communications. Section 71 lifts the hearsay rule for representations in a document recording an electronic communication so far as they concern the identity of the sender, the date and time the message was sent, and its destination - the very metadata a WhatsApp thread carries in every message header. Section 161 goes further and creates a rebuttable presumption that an electronic communication was sent by the person, at the time, and to the destination that appear from the document itself, unless the other side adduces evidence sufficient to raise doubt. Together these provisions mean the sender names and timestamps in a properly exported thread are not dead weight - they are the material the Act itself tells the court to rely on.
From Rusu to Gregg - how Australian courts now authenticate a chat from its own contents
Australian law on authenticating documents has travelled a long way in twenty-five years, and the journey matters for anyone tendering a chat export. In National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309, the NSW Supreme Court took the strict view that a document cannot prove its own authenticity - you needed independent evidence before the document could even be considered. That position was dismantled in ACCC v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355, where Perram J held Rusu was plainly wrong: under s 58 of the Evidence Act, the court may examine a document and draw any reasonable inference from it, including an inference as to its authenticity. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal then expressly overruled Rusu in Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245, confirming there is no reason in principle why the authenticity of a document cannot be determined from the terms of the document itself.
The current law is therefore that authentication in Australia is circumstantial - there is no notarisation or certification regime, and the threshold for admissibility is low. A court asks whether the export's own features - participant names and numbers, message timestamps, the continuity and internal coherence of the conversation - support a reasonable inference that it is what it purports to be. This is precisely why a complete, well-structured export with intact metadata is worth more than a handful of cropped screenshots: the richer and more internally consistent the document, the stronger the s 58 inference. Two honest caveats follow. First, admissibility is only the entry ticket - if the other side disputes authenticity, the contest usually plays out as a question of weight, tested in cross-examination. Second, ss 166 to 169 let an opposing party formally request production of the original or the source device, and non-compliance can lead to exclusion - so keep the phone that generated the export, and do not delete the underlying chat.
Queensland, WA and SA - the states outside the uniform Evidence Act, and how exhibits are actually filed
Not every Australian jurisdiction runs on the uniform Evidence Act, and it is worth knowing which regime your court applies. Queensland retains the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld); its s 95 admits a statement in a document produced wholly or partly by a device or process, where direct oral evidence of the fact would have been admissible - a route that comfortably covers a device-generated chat export. South Australia still operates under the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) with its own documentary provisions. Western Australia has legislated to join the uniform scheme - the Evidence Act 2025 (WA) received Royal Assent on 25 September 2025 - but its substantive provisions commence on proclamation, so the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) continues to apply in practice during the transition. The reassuring bottom line: every Australian jurisdiction, uniform or not, admits device-produced documents, and the same authentication-by-affidavit practice satisfies all of them.
That practice has a distinctly Australian shape. Evidence-in-chief in civil and family proceedings is given by affidavit, and a chat export is tendered as an annexure or exhibit to that affidavit - identified, paginated, and marked with an annexure certificate signed by the same authorised witness who takes the affidavit, consistent with rules such as UCPR (NSW) r 35.6 and Federal Court Rules 2011 r 29.02. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia sees message threads constantly in parenting and property disputes, and registrars and judges have grown sceptical of cropped or selective screenshots - the expectation is a full thread with context, with the source device available if authenticity is put in issue. A single PDF that presents the complete conversation, states how and when it was exported, and carries a SHA-256 hash of the file gives the deponent something concrete to swear to and gives the court exactly the kind of internally consistent document from which s 58 lets it infer authenticity.
How it works
Chat in, certified PDF out
Export & upload
In WhatsApp: open the chat → Export Chat → drop the ZIP into wachattopdf.com. Messages, media and voice notes are parsed exactly as sent.
Pick your country
Tick “Court Certificate” and choose your jurisdiction. Optionally add the declarant name and device so the certificate is pre-filled.
Download the PDF
You get a court-ready PDF with the certificate attached and a SHA-256 hash printed on it - ready to complete, sign and file.
One-time · no subscription
- task_altEvidence Act 1995 (Cth) affidavit attached to the PDF
- task_altSHA-256 hash printed on the certificate
- task_altCourt-ready WhatsApp PDF with Bates numbering
- task_altPII redaction, voice-note transcription & AI-ready JSON included
A fraction of what a lawyer charges to draft one.
FAQ
Australia - answered
How do I authenticate a WhatsApp chat in an Australian court?expand_more
By affidavit from a person with knowledge of the device and the export, relying on the ss.146–147 presumptions for documents produced by processes and devices. Our affidavit sets out the process and carries a SHA-256 integrity hash.
What do ss.146–147 do?expand_more
They create rebuttable presumptions that a device or process which ordinarily produces a particular outcome produced that outcome on the relevant occasion - facilitating the admission of computer-produced evidence like a WhatsApp export.
Do I still need a lawyer?expand_more
The affidavit is a self-service template and must be sworn or affirmed before an authorised witness; Commonwealth, State and Territory rules may vary. Not legal advice - review with a lawyer before filing.
Do I need to produce the original phone, or is the PDF export enough?expand_more
Under s 51 of the uniform Evidence Act the original document rule is abolished, and s 48 lets you prove the contents of the chat with a device-produced copy - so the PDF is admissible in its own right. But keep the phone and do not delete the chat: under ss 166 to 169 the other party can formally request production of the original or the source device, and failing to comply can lead to the evidence being excluded.
Which Australian states have different evidence rules for WhatsApp exports?expand_more
NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT, the NT and the federal courts apply the uniform Evidence Act. Queensland uses the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) - its s 95 admits device-produced documents - and South Australia uses the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). Western Australia has passed the Evidence Act 2025 (WA) to adopt the uniform scheme, but until it is proclaimed the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) still applies. In every jurisdiction, an export authenticated by affidavit is the standard approach.
Do WhatsApp timestamps and sender names count as hearsay in Australia?expand_more
The uniform Act deals with this directly. Section 71 exempts representations in an electronic communication about the sender's identity and the date, time and destination of the message from the hearsay rule, and s 161 presumes the message was sent by the person, at the time, and to the destination appearing from the document unless evidence is adduced to raise doubt. The metadata in a complete export is therefore usable evidence, not an objection waiting to happen.
Not legal advice. This tool generates a affidavit in the format contemplated by Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss. 146–147. It is a self-service template; have a qualified lawyer review, complete and - where required - attest it before filing.
Make your WhatsApp chat court-ready in Australia
Upload the export, pick Australia, and download a signed-and-ready affidavit with a SHA-256 hash.
verifiedGenerate my certificate