Kennett & Anor v Mayrana Pty Limited & Ors (No 6) [2007] NSWIRComm 234

Kennett & Anor v Mayrana Pty Limited & Ors (No 6) [2007] NSWIRComm 234

Mr Prior's accounting qualifications were not in issue, but the applicants did not establish that he had specialised knowledge sufficient to give expert evidence on the inherent defects of flat file databases. The part of his report expressing that opinion was not received. The balance of the report was received, with questions about proof of assumptions and the weight of his opinions to be considered later. Section 60 did not remove the applicants' ordinary onus to establish an evidentiary basis for the assumptions in the report, and the use of hearsay material such as summaries of inquiries was limited under s 136.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ruling During the Hearing on Objections to an Expert Report Tendered by the Applicants
Outcome
Objections upheld in part. The part of Mr Prior's report concerning inherent defects of flat file databases was not received; the balance of the report was received subject to limits on the use of hearsay evidence and later consideration of proof of assumptions and weight.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'hearsay' 'proof of Assumptions' 'limits on Use of Evidence']
['evidence' 'industrial Relations'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'hearsay' 'proof of Assumptions' 'limits on Use of 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

Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ruling During the Hearing on Objections to an Expert Report Tendered by the Applicants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Prior's report expressed opinions rather than inadmissible argument." 'Whether Mr Prior had specialised knowledge under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1996 to give opinion evidence about the functionality and inherent defects of flat file databases.' "Whether hearsay material and assumptions in Mr Prior's report affected admissibility or weight." 'Whether s 60 of the Evidence Act 1996 answered the hearsay objection to the report.' 'Whether s 136 of the Evidence Act 1996 should be used to limit the use of hearsay material in the report.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Prior's accounting qualifications were not in issue, but the applicants did not establish that he had specialised knowledge sufficient to give expert evidence on the inherent defects of flat file databases. The part of his report expressing that opinion was not received. The balance of the report was received, with questions about proof of assumptions and the weight of his opinions to be considered later. Section 60 did not remove the applicants' ordinary onus to establish an evidentiary basis for the assumptions in the report, and the use of hearsay material such as summaries of inquiries was limited under s 136.

Court Disposition

Objections upheld in part. The part of Mr Prior's report concerning inherent defects of flat file databases was not received; the balance of the report was received subject to limits on the use of hearsay evidence and later consideration of proof of assumptions and weight.

Orders

  • ["The part of Mr Prior's report expressing opinions on the inherent defects of flat file databases was not received." "The balance of Mr Prior's report was received." "The use of Mr Prior's hearsay evidence, including summaries of inquiries, was limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1996."]