Allstate Life Insurance Co & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors (No 33) [1996] FCA 127

Allstate Life Insurance Co & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors (No 33) [1996] FCA 127

Paragraph 24 was inadmissible because it applied United States law to the assumed facts rather than merely identifying and expounding the content of foreign law. Evidence Act 1995 s 80(a) did not displace the fundamental rule excluding expert legal opinion that intrudes on the court's function of applying law to facts, and the opinion was not relevant evidence under s 55 in that respect. The paragraph was also disallowed because the expert's expertise as a securities attorney did not qualify him to express an opinion about how no reasonable prospective purchaser would act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceedings Concerning Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence as to Foreign Law / Ruling on Objection to Paragraph 24 of Theodore Altman's Expert Witness Statement
Outcome
Objection upheld; paragraph 24 of Theodore Altman's statement was held inadmissible and disallowed.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'content and Application of Foreign Law' 'ultimate Issue Rule' 'evidence Act 1995 S 80' 'disclosure in United States Securities Registration Statement and Prospectus']
['evidence' 'foreign Law' 'securities Law'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'content and Application of Foreign Law' 'ultimate Issue Rule' 'evidence Act 1995 S 80' 'disclosure in United States Securities Registration Statement and Prospectus']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceedings Concerning Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence as to Foreign Law / Ruling on Objection to Paragraph 24 of Theodore Altman's Expert Witness Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraph 24 of Theodore Altman's statement satisfied the requirements for admissibility of opinion evidence as to foreign law." 'Whether Evidence Act 1995 s 80 made admissible expert legal opinion evidence applying foreign law to the facts despite the general law distinction between content evidence and application evidence.' 'Whether the expert had stated all assumptions underlying the opinion in paragraph 24.' 'Whether the expert had sufficient expertise to express the opinion in paragraph 24 concerning reasonable prospective purchasers of the debentures.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 24 was inadmissible because it applied United States law to the assumed facts rather than merely identifying and expounding the content of foreign law. Evidence Act 1995 s 80(a) did not displace the fundamental rule excluding expert legal opinion that intrudes on the court's function of applying law to facts, and the opinion was not relevant evidence under s 55 in that respect. The paragraph was also disallowed because the expert's expertise as a securities attorney did not qualify him to express an opinion about how no reasonable prospective purchaser would act.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; paragraph 24 of Theodore Altman's statement was held inadmissible and disallowed.

Orders

  • ['Paragraph 24 is not admissible.' 'Paragraph 24 is disallowed.']