Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST VIC 8007 AUSTRALIA
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email:adr@arbitrator.com.au Internet:http://www.arbitrator.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools


expert_evidence

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
expert_evidence [2013/01/24 20:08]
steve [1995]
expert_evidence [2017/07/30 18:00] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Expert Evidence - Interesting Cases ====== ====== Expert Evidence - Interesting Cases ======
-===== 2012 =====+==== 2012 ====
   * [[NSW Land & Housing Corporation v Dia]] (([2012] NSWCA 321)) at [29]   * [[NSW Land & Housing Corporation v Dia]] (([2012] NSWCA 321)) at [29]
   * [[Welker v Reinhart|Welker v Reinhart (No 6)]] (([2012] NSWSC 160))   * [[Welker v Reinhart|Welker v Reinhart (No 6)]] (([2012] NSWSC 160))
Line 19: Line 19:
     * multiple [[conference of experts|expert conferences]] ordered.     * multiple [[conference of experts|expert conferences]] ordered.
  
-===== 2011 =====+==== 2011 ====
   * [[Dasreef v Hawchar|Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar]](([2011] HCA 21))   * [[Dasreef v Hawchar|Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar]](([2011] HCA 21))
     * the [expert evidence] was not admissible to ... [as it] was not "​wholly or substantially based on" "​specialised knowledge based on [the experts] training, study or experience"​.     * the [expert evidence] was not admissible to ... [as it] was not "​wholly or substantially based on" "​specialised knowledge based on [the experts] training, study or experience"​.
Line 33: Line 33:
   * [[BOSI Security Services v ANZ Banking Group|BOSI Security Services Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Limited]] (([2011] VSC 255)) per Davies J at [141]-[142]   * [[BOSI Security Services v ANZ Banking Group|BOSI Security Services Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Limited]] (([2011] VSC 255)) per Davies J at [141]-[142]
  
-===== 2010 =====+==== 2010 ====
   * [[Roads Corporation v Love]] (([2010] VSC 253)) at [34], [36] per Vickery J   * [[Roads Corporation v Love]] (([2010] VSC 253)) at [34], [36] per Vickery J
-===== 2009 =====+==== 2009 ====
   * [[BHP v Steuler|BHP v Steuler]] (([2009] VSC 322))   * [[BHP v Steuler|BHP v Steuler]] (([2009] VSC 322))
   * [[Serong v Dependable Developments|Serong v Dependable Developments Pty Ltd]] (([2009] VCAT 760))   * [[Serong v Dependable Developments|Serong v Dependable Developments Pty Ltd]] (([2009] VCAT 760))
-===== 2008 =====+==== 2008 ====
   * [[Protec Pacific v Cherry|Protec Pacific Pty Ltd v Cherry]](([2008] VSC 76))    * [[Protec Pacific v Cherry|Protec Pacific Pty Ltd v Cherry]](([2008] VSC 76)) 
   * [[Pan Pharmaceuticals v Selim|Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in liq) v Selim]] (([2008] FCA 416))   * [[Pan Pharmaceuticals v Selim|Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in liq) v Selim]] (([2008] FCA 416))
-===== 2007 ===== +==== 2007 ==== 
   * [[Premier Building v Spotless|Premier Building v Spotless]] (([2007] VSC 377))   * [[Premier Building v Spotless|Premier Building v Spotless]] (([2007] VSC 377))
-===== 2006 =====+==== 2006 ====
   * [[Aquatec Maxcon v Baron Region Water|Aquatec Maxcon Pty Ltd v Baron Region Water (No 2)]] (([2006] VSC 117))   * [[Aquatec Maxcon v Baron Region Water|Aquatec Maxcon Pty Ltd v Baron Region Water (No 2)]] (([2006] VSC 117))
   * [[Ocean Grove Bowling Club v Victorian Commissioner of Gambling Regulation|Ocean Grove Bowling Club v Victorian Commissioner of Gambling Regulation]] (([2006] VCAT 1422)) at [7], [8]   * [[Ocean Grove Bowling Club v Victorian Commissioner of Gambling Regulation|Ocean Grove Bowling Club v Victorian Commissioner of Gambling Regulation]] (([2006] VCAT 1422)) at [7], [8]
-===== 2005 ===== +==== 2005 ==== 
   * [[ASIC v Rich]] (([2005] NSWSC 149))   * [[ASIC v Rich]] (([2005] NSWSC 149))
     * Lack of independence goes to weight.     * Lack of independence goes to weight.
Line 52: Line 52:
   * [[Temwell v DKGR Holdings|Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd]] (([2005] FCA 1403))   * [[Temwell v DKGR Holdings|Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd]] (([2005] FCA 1403))
   * [[Universal Music v Sharman License Holdings|Universal Music Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd]] (([2005] FCA 1242))   * [[Universal Music v Sharman License Holdings|Universal Music Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd]] (([2005] FCA 1242))
-===== 2004 =====+==== 2004 ====
   * [[Jango v Northern Territory of Australia|Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3)]] (([2004] FCA 1029)) at [13]   * [[Jango v Northern Territory of Australia|Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 3)]] (([2004] FCA 1029)) at [13]
-===== 2003 =====+==== 2003 ====
   * [[FGT Custodians v Fagenblat|FGT Custodians Pty Ltd (formerly Feingold Partners Pty Ltd) v Fagenblat]] (([2003] VSCA 33))   * [[FGT Custodians v Fagenblat|FGT Custodians Pty Ltd (formerly Feingold Partners Pty Ltd) v Fagenblat]] (([2003] VSCA 33))
     * Lack of independence is not of itself sufficient to establish inadmissablity     * Lack of independence is not of itself sufficient to establish inadmissablity
   * [[Evans Deakin v Sebel Furniture|Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Sebel Furniture Ltd]] (([2003] FCA 171)) at [676]   * [[Evans Deakin v Sebel Furniture|Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Sebel Furniture Ltd]] (([2003] FCA 171)) at [676]
-===== 2001 =====+==== 2001 ====
   * [[Makita v Sprowles|Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles]] (( (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, p 85 approved in Dasreef))   * [[Makita v Sprowles|Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles]] (( (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, p 85 approved in Dasreef))
     * //In short, if evidence tendered as expert opinion evidence is to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is a field of "​specialised knowledge";​ //     * //In short, if evidence tendered as expert opinion evidence is to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is a field of "​specialised knowledge";​ //
Line 72: Line 72:
     * //If the court cannot be sure of that, the evidence is strictly speaking not admissible, and, so far as it is admissible, of diminished weight. //     * //If the court cannot be sure of that, the evidence is strictly speaking not admissible, and, so far as it is admissible, of diminished weight. //
     * //And an attempt to make the basis of the opinion explicit may reveal that it is not based on specialised expert knowledge, but, to use Gleeson CJ's characterisation of the evidence in [[HG v R]] [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 197 CLR 414, on "a combination of speculation,​ inference, personal and second-hand views as to the credibility of the complainant,​ and a process of reasoning which went well beyond the field of expertise"​ (at [41]). //     * //And an attempt to make the basis of the opinion explicit may reveal that it is not based on specialised expert knowledge, but, to use Gleeson CJ's characterisation of the evidence in [[HG v R]] [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 197 CLR 414, on "a combination of speculation,​ inference, personal and second-hand views as to the credibility of the complainant,​ and a process of reasoning which went well beyond the field of expertise"​ (at [41]). //
-===== 1995 =====+==== 1995 ====
   * [[Mobil Oil Australia v Guina Developments|Mobil Oil Australia Ltd and Anor v Guina Developments Pty Ltd and Anor]](([1996] VicRp 54; [1996] 2 VR 34)) **Inspection of documents by experts only**   * [[Mobil Oil Australia v Guina Developments|Mobil Oil Australia Ltd and Anor v Guina Developments Pty Ltd and Anor]](([1996] VicRp 54; [1996] 2 VR 34)) **Inspection of documents by experts only**
     * While it may readily be accepted that a party is ordinarily entitled to discovery and inspection of all discoverable documents in the possession or control of the opposite party (save those for which a valid claim for privilege from production is claimed) it is important to bear steadily in mind that discovery is but a tool to be used in the pursuit of justice and that the right to discovery and inspection is not without its limits. The first and most obvious limit is that a party does not have a right to inspect documents that are discovered if there is a valid claim to privilege from production (as eg on the grounds of legal professional privilege). Secondly, because the law recognises that the assertion of compulsive power requiring production must be balanced against the needs of justice, a party inspecting the documents of the opposite party may not use them except for the purposes of the action in which discovery is made.     * While it may readily be accepted that a party is ordinarily entitled to discovery and inspection of all discoverable documents in the possession or control of the opposite party (save those for which a valid claim for privilege from production is claimed) it is important to bear steadily in mind that discovery is but a tool to be used in the pursuit of justice and that the right to discovery and inspection is not without its limits. The first and most obvious limit is that a party does not have a right to inspect documents that are discovered if there is a valid claim to privilege from production (as eg on the grounds of legal professional privilege). Secondly, because the law recognises that the assertion of compulsive power requiring production must be balanced against the needs of justice, a party inspecting the documents of the opposite party may not use them except for the purposes of the action in which discovery is made.
     * Where it is said that the documents are confidential,​ it may be accepted that the fact that the documents are confidential will not ordinarily be a sufficient reason to deny inspection by the opposite party. In most cases, the fact that the documents may not be used except for the purposes of the litigation concerned will be sufficient protection to the party producing them. But where, as here, the party obtaining discovery is a trade rival of the person whose secrets it is proposed should be revealed by discovery and inspection, other considerations arise.     * Where it is said that the documents are confidential,​ it may be accepted that the fact that the documents are confidential will not ordinarily be a sufficient reason to deny inspection by the opposite party. In most cases, the fact that the documents may not be used except for the purposes of the litigation concerned will be sufficient protection to the party producing them. But where, as here, the party obtaining discovery is a trade rival of the person whose secrets it is proposed should be revealed by discovery and inspection, other considerations arise.
     * Once the documents are inspected by the principals of the trade rival the information which is revealed is known to the trade rival and cannot be forgotten. Confidentiality is destroyed once and for all (at least so far as the particular trade rival is concerned). To say that the trade rival is bound not to use the documents except for the purposes of the action concerned is, in a case such as this, to impose upon that trade rival an obligation that is impossible of performance by him and impossible of enforcement by the party whose secrets have been revealed. How is the trade rival to forget what internal rate of return the competitor seeks to achieve on a new investment of the kind in question? How is the party whose hurdle rate has been revealed to know whether the rival has used the information in framing a tender? Thus, if the trade rival may inspect the documents concerned, the confidentiality of the information in them is at once destroyed. Is that necessary for the attainment of justice in the particular case?     * Once the documents are inspected by the principals of the trade rival the information which is revealed is known to the trade rival and cannot be forgotten. Confidentiality is destroyed once and for all (at least so far as the particular trade rival is concerned). To say that the trade rival is bound not to use the documents except for the purposes of the action concerned is, in a case such as this, to impose upon that trade rival an obligation that is impossible of performance by him and impossible of enforcement by the party whose secrets have been revealed. How is the trade rival to forget what internal rate of return the competitor seeks to achieve on a new investment of the kind in question? How is the party whose hurdle rate has been revealed to know whether the rival has used the information in framing a tender? Thus, if the trade rival may inspect the documents concerned, the confidentiality of the information in them is at once destroyed. Is that necessary for the attainment of justice in the particular case?
-===== 1989 ===== +==== 1989 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​vic/​VicRp/​1989/​60.html|Phosphate-Operative Company of Australia v Shears (Pivot)]] (([1989] VR 665)) at 686, 680 +  * [[Phosphate-Operative Company of Australia v Shears|Phosphate-Operative Company of Australia v Shears (Pivot)]] (([1989] VR 665)) at 686, 680 
  
-====== Expert Evidence - Interesting Arbitral Rules ======+===== Expert Evidence - Interesting Arbitral Rules =====
   * [[http://​www.ibanet.org/​Publications/​publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx#​takingevidence|IBA Rules for taking evidence (2010)]] Articles 5 & 6   * [[http://​www.ibanet.org/​Publications/​publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx#​takingevidence|IBA Rules for taking evidence (2010)]] Articles 5 & 6
   * [[http://​www.ciarb.org/​information-and-resources/​The%20use%20of%20party-appointed%20experts.pdf|CIARB Rules for the use of party appointed experts]]   * [[http://​www.ciarb.org/​information-and-resources/​The%20use%20of%20party-appointed%20experts.pdf|CIARB Rules for the use of party appointed experts]]
  
-====== Expert Evidence - Legislation ​====== +===== Expert Evidence - Legislation ===== 
-===== Commonwealth ​=====+==== Commonwealth ====
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​ea199580|Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)]] ​   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​ea199580|Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)]] ​
     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​ea199580/​s55.html|s55 Relevant evidence]]     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​cth/​consol_act/​ea199580/​s55.html|s55 Relevant evidence]]
Line 94: Line 94:
   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​cth/​num_reg/​fcr2011n134o2011269/​s5.04.html|Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), s5.04]]   * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​cth/​num_reg/​fcr2011n134o2011269/​s5.04.html|Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), s5.04]]
   * [[http://​www.fedcourt.gov.au/​pdfsrtfs_p/​practice_notes_cm7.rtf|Federal Court of Australia, CM7 Expert witnesses in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia]]   * [[http://​www.fedcourt.gov.au/​pdfsrtfs_p/​practice_notes_cm7.rtf|Federal Court of Australia, CM7 Expert witnesses in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia]]
-===== Victoria ​=====+==== Victoria ====
     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​|Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)]], Part [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpaa201262o2012293/​s10.html|4.6]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s16.html|16]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s17.html|17]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s20.html|20]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s21.html|21]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s23.html|23]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s24.html|24]] and [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s25.html|25]]     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​|Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)]], Part [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpaa201262o2012293/​s10.html|4.6]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s16.html|16]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s17.html|17]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s20.html|20]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s21.html|21]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s23.html|23]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s24.html|24]] and [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​cpa201047o2010213/​s25.html|25]]
     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​|Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)]] [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s55.html|s55]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s76.html|s76]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s79.html|s79(1)]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s135.html|s135]] and [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s136.html|s136]]     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​|Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)]] [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s55.html|s55]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s76.html|s76]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s79.html|s79(1)]],​ [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s135.html|s135]] and [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​ea200847o2008126/​s136.html|s136]]
Line 103: Line 103:
     * [[http://​www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/​resources/​55ae30b3-2f60-4527-8437-3cf6c1fa13bc/​practice%2bnote%2b2%2bof%2b2009%2b-%2btec%2blist.pdf|Technology and Construction List Guide Practice Note 2 of 2009]]     * [[http://​www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/​resources/​55ae30b3-2f60-4527-8437-3cf6c1fa13bc/​practice%2bnote%2b2%2bof%2b2009%2b-%2btec%2blist.pdf|Technology and Construction List Guide Practice Note 2 of 2009]]
     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​caa201150o2011265/​s19.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic), s19(3)]]     * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​legis/​vic/​num_act/​caa201150o2011265/​s19.html|Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic), s19(3)]]
-===== New South Wales ===== +==== New South Wales ==== 
     *  Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), Part 3, Rule 31     *  Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), Part 3, Rule 31
-===== Queensland ​===== +==== Queensland ==== 
   * Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Part V   * Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Part V
  
  
-====== Expert Evidence Glossary ​======+===== Expert Evidence Glossary =====
   * [[conference of experts|conclave of experts]]   * [[conference of experts|conclave of experts]]
   * [[conference of experts|conference of experts]]   * [[conference of experts|conference of experts]]
Line 121: Line 121:
   * [[conference of experts|hot tub]]   * [[conference of experts|hot tub]]
   * [[joint enquiry or testing]]   * [[joint enquiry or testing]]
-====== Expert Evidence Papers ​======+===== Expert Evidence Papers =====
   * Lord Woolf MR, Access to Justice Interim Report to the Lord Chancelloer on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales HMSO London 1995 p183   * Lord Woolf MR, Access to Justice Interim Report to the Lord Chancelloer on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales HMSO London 1995 p183
   * Access to Justice - Final Report HMSO London 1996   * Access to Justice - Final Report HMSO London 1996

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au