Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2004] FCA 1004

Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2004] FCA 1004

Sections and appendices of the applicants' expert reports were rejected as inadmissible as they failed to meet the requirements of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) for expert opinion evidence: they did not distinguish between fact and opinion, lacked clear identification of sources and did not present a basis for the court to determine whether opinions were based on relevant specialised knowledge. Some portions might be admissible in future if proper foundation is laid and deficiencies cured.

Parties
Applicants: Johnny Jango and Others; First Respondent: Northern Territory of Australia; Second Respondent: GPT Management Limited; Third Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Native Title Compensation Claim / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Reports/evidence
Outcome
Objections to most impugned paragraphs and appendices in the applicants' expert reports are upheld; those sections are excluded as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Reports, Expert Evidence, Application of Evidence Act 1995 (cth), Practice in Native Title Claims
Evidence Native Title Admissibility of Expert Reports Expert Evidence Application of Evidence Act 1995 (cth) Practice in Native Title Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnny Jango and Others

Applicants

Northern Territory of Australia

First Respondent

GPT Management Limited

Second Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Native Title Compensation Claim / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Reports/evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of expert anthropological reports tendered by applicants in a native title compensation case comply with the requirements for admissibility under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the reports or portions thereof should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay, speculation, or lacking probative value

Ratio Decidendi

Sections and appendices of the applicants' expert reports were rejected as inadmissible as they failed to meet the requirements of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) for expert opinion evidence: they did not distinguish between fact and opinion, lacked clear identification of sources and did not present a basis for the court to determine whether opinions were based on relevant specialised knowledge. Some portions might be admissible in future if proper foundation is laid and deficiencies cured.

Court Disposition

Objections to most impugned paragraphs and appendices in the applicants' expert reports are upheld; those sections are excluded as inadmissible.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3.46, 4.26, 5.12, 5.13, 5.140-5.145, 6.13, 6.85, 6.87, 7.2, 7.30, 8.5, 8.69-8.101, 8.103-8.107, appendices 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and paragraphs 47 and 101 of Dr Willis' report are not admitted into evidence in their present form; further attempts to rely on such material depend on curing defects identified in...