Canon Finance Australia Limited v Reliance Medical Practice Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] NSWSC 1373

Canon Finance Australia Limited v Reliance Medical Practice Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] NSWSC 1373

The first and third sentences of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit were rejected because the opinions were opaque: the factual basis and reasoning were undisclosed, so the Court could not assess whether the opinions were wholly or substantially based on Mr Benson's expertise as required by s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Although the opinions were potentially relevant, the admissibility threshold had not been crossed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Objections to Affidavit Evidence in a Cross Claim
Outcome
The first sentence and third sentence of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit were rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 79']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 79']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Objections to Affidavit Evidence in a Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first and third sentences of paragraph 14 of Mr Christopher Benson's affidavit were admissible as expert opinion evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the objected-to opinions were relevant to averments in the current iteration of the cross-claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first and third sentences of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit were rejected because the opinions were opaque: the factual basis and reasoning were undisclosed, so the Court could not assess whether the opinions were wholly or substantially based on Mr Benson's expertise as required by s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Although the opinions were potentially relevant, the admissibility threshold had not been crossed.

Court Disposition

The first sentence and third sentence of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit were rejected.

Orders

  • ["Reject the first sentence and third sentence of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit."]