Thomson and anor v Societe Generale Australia Limited and anor [2005] NSWIRComm 207
The report did not demonstrate that the opinions expressed were wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from Mr Bartle’s training, study or experience. There was insufficient material in the report to establish that it was based on such knowledge, making it unsafe to admit as expert evidence.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 June 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Admission of Expert Report
- Outcome
- Tendering of the expert report is rejected. The report is not admitted into evidence.
- Legal Topics
- ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Reports']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Admission of Expert Report
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the expert report of Mr Bartle is admissible as evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act due to being based on specialised knowledge']
Ratio Decidendi
The report did not demonstrate that the opinions expressed were wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from Mr Bartle’s training, study or experience. There was insufficient material in the report to establish that it was based on such knowledge, making it unsafe to admit as expert evidence.
Court Disposition
Tendering of the expert report is rejected. The report is not admitted into evidence.
Orders
- ['The tender of the report of Mr Bartle is rejected.' 'The report is not admitted into evidence.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment