ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 999

ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 999

The Court ruled item by item that those parts of Mr Carter's materials consisting of admissible expert opinion, admissible observations, or relevant explanation of his reasoning and thought processes could be received, sometimes subject to limitation, while material involving unsupported conclusions, impermissible findings about matters for the Court, credibility-only assertions, or evidence whose limited probative value was outweighed by risks of confusion, unfair prejudice or undue waste of time was rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Civil Proceeding / Written Submissions on Admissibility of Expert Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Defendants' objections upheld in part and rejected in part; rulings made on the admissibility of the remaining parts of Mr Carter's supplementary materials.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'forensic Accounting Evidence' 'admissibility of Supplementary Expert Materials' 'credibility Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'limiting Use of Evidence']
['evidence' 'equity' 'corporations'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'forensic Accounting Evidence' 'admissibility of Supplementary Expert Materials' 'credibility Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'limiting 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

Equity Division Civil Proceeding / Written Submissions on Admissibility of Expert Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether remaining parts of Mr Carter's supplementary materials and related reports were admissible." "Whether parts of Mr Carter's evidence were admissible expert opinion evidence based on specialised knowledge or only observations." 'Whether assertions of independence and objectivity were inadmissible credibility evidence under s 102 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether evidence concerning admitted creditors should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because of undue waste of time, confusion or misleading effect.' 'Whether some admitted material required a limiting order under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled item by item that those parts of Mr Carter's materials consisting of admissible expert opinion, admissible observations, or relevant explanation of his reasoning and thought processes could be received, sometimes subject to limitation, while material involving unsupported conclusions, impermissible findings about matters for the Court, credibility-only assertions, or evidence whose limited probative value was outweighed by risks of confusion, unfair prejudice or undue waste of time was rejected.

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections upheld in part and rejected in part; rulings made on the admissibility of the remaining parts of Mr Carter's supplementary materials.

Orders

  • ['Principal report of 31 May 2002: parts of the table in paragraph 222 were allowed, but the growth in uncollectible trade debtors figures and dependent conclusions were excluded.' 'Principal report of 31 May 2002: paragraphs 13, 14(c), 15(c), 24 and 25(a) were rejected.' 'Principal report of 31 May 2002: paragraph...