Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1334

Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1334

Because the plaintiffs' cross-examination ranged widely over Dr Craig-Lees' report, including direct and implicit references to its contents, the witness was cross-examined on the report. Although it would have been preferable for the tender to be dealt with while Dr Craig-Lees was still giving evidence, the timing was not a fatal objection, particularly as the plaintiffs had been put on notice of the defendants' intention to tender the report. The Court could not satisfactorily sever any parts of the report, and admitting the whole report was not unfairly prejudicial in the legal sense.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Ex Tempore Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
The defendants' tender of Dr Craig-Lees' February 1999 report was allowed; the whole report was to be admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination on Expert Report' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'tender of Documents' 'expert Evidence']
['defamation' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination on Expert Report' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'tender of Documents' 'expert 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

Defamation / Ex Tempore Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' cross-examination of Dr Craig-Lees on her report entitled the defendants to tender the report." "Whether the defendants' tender of the report was too late because it was not made before Dr Craig-Lees was excused." 'Whether the whole report, or only parts of it, should be admitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs' cross-examination ranged widely over Dr Craig-Lees' report, including direct and implicit references to its contents, the witness was cross-examined on the report. Although it would have been preferable for the tender to be dealt with while Dr Craig-Lees was still giving evidence, the timing was not a fatal objection, particularly as the plaintiffs had been put on notice of the defendants' intention to tender the report. The Court could not satisfactorily sever any parts of the report, and admitting the whole report was not unfairly prejudicial in the legal sense.

Court Disposition

The defendants' tender of Dr Craig-Lees' February 1999 report was allowed; the whole report was to be admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • ['The whole report should go in.' 'The Court proposed to admit the whole report when the jury returned.']