Smart v AAI Ltd ; JRK Realty v AAI Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 621

Smart v AAI Ltd ; JRK Realty v AAI Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 621

Mr Roams' extensive commercial, banking, lending and mortgage origination experience gave him sufficient expertise to opine on questions 1 and 2 concerning the usual practice and normal course of Q1's professional services, and those opinions were relevant to issues arising on construction of the policy. However, his opinions on whether JRK and Mr Smart acted as reasonable and competent lenders were not directed to the legally relevant inquiry for contributory negligence or proportionate liability, which required consideration of the plaintiffs' individual circumstances; and, if the questions were reformulated to reflect that inquiry, he lacked appropriate qualifications to opine on...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling; Objection to Tender of Expert Affidavit and Report / Interlocutory Ruling During Hearing
Outcome
The tender of Mr Roams' report was allowed in relation to questions 1 and 2 and rejected in relation to questions 3 and 4 and associated parts.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'expertise' 'relevance' 'professional Indemnity Insurance' 'mortgage and Finance Broking' 'contributory Negligence' 'proportionate Liability']
['evidence' 'insurance' 'civil Liability'] ['expert Evidence' 'expertise' 'relevance' 'professional Indemnity Insurance' 'mortgage and Finance Broking' 'contributory Negligence' 'proportionate Liability']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling; Objection to Tender of Expert Affidavit and Report / Interlocutory Ruling During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dennis John Roams had relevant expertise to give opinions about the usual practice and normal course of professional services of a mortgage broker, finance broker, mortgage originator, mortgage management and debt reduction business.' "Whether Mr Roams' opinions on questions 1 and 2 were relevant to construction and application of the professional services and assumed liability provisions in the insurance policy." "Whether Mr Roams' opinions on whether JRK Realty Pty Ltd and Mr Smart acted as reasonable and competent lenders were relevant and admissible in relation to alleged contributory negligence and proportionate liability." 'Whether Mr Roams had appropriate qualifications to opine on the conduct of private, spasmodic investment lending by the plaintiffs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Roams' extensive commercial, banking, lending and mortgage origination experience gave him sufficient expertise to opine on questions 1 and 2 concerning the usual practice and normal course of Q1's professional services, and those opinions were relevant to issues arising on construction of the policy. However, his opinions on whether JRK and Mr Smart acted as reasonable and competent lenders were not directed to the legally relevant inquiry for contributory negligence or proportionate liability, which required consideration of the plaintiffs' individual circumstances; and, if the questions were reformulated to reflect that inquiry, he lacked appropriate qualifications to opine on...

Court Disposition

The tender of Mr Roams' report was allowed in relation to questions 1 and 2 and rejected in relation to questions 3 and 4 and associated parts.

Orders

  • ["Reject the tender of the following parts of Mr Roams' report: [17], questions 3 and 4; [18], answers 3 and 4 and section H."]