Morgan v Norton [2018] NSWSC 434

Morgan v Norton [2018] NSWSC 434

Mrs Smyth possessed relevant specialised knowledge based on her extensive experience as a horsewoman and trainer, and her report contained opinions wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. The criticisms of the report did not justify an advance ruling excluding it in whole or in part, particularly where the trial judge would be better placed to determine admissibility and use in the context of all lay and expert evidence. Because Mrs Smyth had the requisite expertise and her report relevantly used it, there was no reason to vacate or modify the expert conclave orders; the conclave would assist the just, quick and cost-effective disposal of the proceedings. The late and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Concerning a Horse Sale, Alleged Misrepresentations, Breach of Warranty and Breach of Contract; Interlocutory Evidence Application / Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking an Advance Ruling Under S 192 a of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) That Mrs Smyth's Expert Report Was Inadmissible, or Alternatively Orders Concerning the Expert Conclave
Outcome
The Defendant's notice of motion was dismissed, and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge Based on Experience' 'advance Rulings Under S 192 a of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'expert Witness Conclaves' 'costs of Notice of Motion']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge Based on Experience' 'advance Rulings Under S 192 a of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'expert Witness Conclaves' 'costs of Notice of Motion']

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

Civil Proceedings Concerning a Horse Sale, Alleged Misrepresentations, Breach of Warranty and Breach of Contract; Interlocutory Evidence Application / Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking an Advance Ruling Under S 192 a of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) That Mrs Smyth's Expert Report Was Inadmissible, or Alternatively Orders Concerning the Expert Conclave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mrs Smyth had specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience for the purposes of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' "Whether Mrs Smyth's report was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge and complied with Makita and Dasreef requirements" "Whether the Court should make preliminary rulings excluding all or part of Mrs Smyth's report under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)" 'Whether existing orders for an expert conclave should be vacated or modified to exclude Mrs Smyth' 'What costs order should be made on the notice of motion']

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Smyth possessed relevant specialised knowledge based on her extensive experience as a horsewoman and trainer, and her report contained opinions wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. The criticisms of the report did not justify an advance ruling excluding it in whole or in part, particularly where the trial judge would be better placed to determine admissibility and use in the context of all lay and expert evidence. Because Mrs Smyth had the requisite expertise and her report relevantly used it, there was no reason to vacate or modify the expert conclave orders; the conclave would assist the just, quick and cost-effective disposal of the proceedings. The late and...

Court Disposition

The Defendant's notice of motion was dismissed, and the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ["The Defendant's notice of motion is dismissed." "The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion."]