Stanford v DePuy International Ltd (No 5) [2015] FCA 340

Stanford v DePuy International Ltd (No 5) [2015] FCA 340

The Court admitted only those parts of Professor Athanasou's outline and PowerPoint that were mere identification, merely illustrative, or a useful less technical summary of material already in his reports, and rejected parts that were additional substantive evidence, new, distracting, or departed from the existing reports at a late stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence Presentation Materials / During Hearing; Applicants Sought to Tender an Outline of Proposed Oral Evidence and Power Point Slides of Professor Athanasou
Outcome
Outline and PowerPoint materials admitted in part and rejected in part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'illustrative Evidence' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 135' 'late Tender of Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'illustrative Evidence' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 135' 'late Tender of Evidence']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence Presentation Materials / During Hearing; Applicants Sought to Tender an Outline of Proposed Oral Evidence and Power Point Slides of Professor Athanasou

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be permitted to tender Professor Athanasou's outline of proposed oral evidence and accompanying PowerPoint slides." "Whether the materials were merely illustrative of propositions in Professor Athanasou's reports or constituted additional substantive oral evidence." 'Whether parts of the materials should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as a distraction or because the respondents should not have to deal with new material at a late stage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court admitted only those parts of Professor Athanasou's outline and PowerPoint that were mere identification, merely illustrative, or a useful less technical summary of material already in his reports, and rejected parts that were additional substantive evidence, new, distracting, or departed from the existing reports at a late stage.

Court Disposition

Outline and PowerPoint materials admitted in part and rejected in part.

Orders

  • ['The introductory two lines, the subheading "Outline of presentation" and the numbered paragraphs after that subheading of the Outline of proposed oral evidence of Professor Athanasou (the Outline) be rejected.' 'The final sentence of the Outline be rejected.' 'The balance of the Outline be admitted.' 'The...