Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 13) [2013] NSWSC 1057

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 13) [2013] NSWSC 1057

The Plaintiffs' testing expert reports did not support the absolute assumptions, used by key market and loss experts, that the Plaintiffs' products as a whole were superior to competitors' products. At their highest, the testing reports showed that some products were unique or superior, but most were comparable, on par with, or merely competitive. Because the proof of assumption rule was not satisfied, the reports of Professor Layton and Professor Dowling were irrelevant and inadmissible. Reports or parts of reports that depended on those inadmissible opinions, including parts of Pitcher Partners, Wheaton Beer Consulting, Alan Stevenson, John Matheson, and Robin Humphreys, were likewise...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Defendants' Application Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 for Early Determination of Admissibility of Parts of the Plaintiffs' Expert Evidence
Outcome
Defendants' application substantially allowed; specified expert reports were ruled inadmissible or rejected in whole or in part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'proof of Assumptions' 'expert Reports' 'early Evidentiary Rulings' 'relevance']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'proof of Assumptions' 'expert Reports' 'early Evidentiary Rulings' 'relevance']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Defendants' Application Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 for Early Determination of Admissibility of Parts of the Plaintiffs' Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether expert reports based on assumptions about the superiority of the Plaintiffs' products were admissible where the Plaintiffs' other evidence did not support those assumptions." 'Whether the proof of assumption rule required rejection of expert opinion evidence whose factual assumptions were not supported by admitted or expected evidence.' 'Whether consequential expert reports relying on the inadmissible market-share and sales reports should also be rejected in whole or in part.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs' testing expert reports did not support the absolute assumptions, used by key market and loss experts, that the Plaintiffs' products as a whole were superior to competitors' products. At their highest, the testing reports showed that some products were unique or superior, but most were comparable, on par with, or merely competitive. Because the proof of assumption rule was not satisfied, the reports of Professor Layton and Professor Dowling were irrelevant and inadmissible. Reports or parts of reports that depended on those inadmissible opinions, including parts of Pitcher Partners, Wheaton Beer Consulting, Alan Stevenson, John Matheson, and Robin Humphreys, were likewise...

Court Disposition

Defendants' application substantially allowed; specified expert reports were ruled inadmissible or rejected in whole or in part.

Orders

  • ['The reports of Professor Roger Layton dated 21 October 2005, 10 February 2006 and 11 July 2012 are inadmissible.' 'The reports of Professor Grahame Dowling dated 4 August 2006 and July 2012 are inadmissible.' 'The report of Wheaton Beer Consulting of 13 January 2012 is inadmissible.' 'In the report of Pitcher...