Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tomar (No 4) [2012] FCA 385
The witnesses were qualified by reason of specialised knowledge based on their training, study, and experience, and a lack of independence or partiality does not preclude them from giving expert evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act. Independence is not a requirement for competence to give expert evidence; absence of independence affects credibility or weight, not admissibility.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 April 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Trial / Ruling on Expert Evidence Admissibility
- Outcome
- Defendants' objection to competence of proposed expert witnesses dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['expert Evidence' 'opinion Rule' 'specialised Knowledge' 'independence of Expert Witnesses']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Trial / Ruling on Expert Evidence Admissibility
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Competence of witnesses to give expert evidence' 'Requirement for specialised knowledge under Evidence Act' 'Requirement for independence of expert witnesses']
Ratio Decidendi
The witnesses were qualified by reason of specialised knowledge based on their training, study, and experience, and a lack of independence or partiality does not preclude them from giving expert evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act. Independence is not a requirement for competence to give expert evidence; absence of independence affects credibility or weight, not admissibility.
Court Disposition
Defendants' objection to competence of proposed expert witnesses dismissed
Orders
- ['Two witnesses, Squadron Leader Tanner and Professor Sohail Inyatullah, permitted to give evidence as expert witnesses']
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