Mei Ying Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2008] FCA 915

Mei Ying Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2008] FCA 915

The tender of Mr Gray's opinion was rejected because, even if he were sufficiently qualified by practical experience, his affidavits did not disclose the reasoning process by which he concluded that the engine warmth was consistent with the assumed facts, so the Court could not link the opinion to any field of specialised knowledge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Evidentiary Ruling / Hearing on Tender of Opinion Evidence in Affidavit
Outcome
Tender of the opinion evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'disclosure of Expert Reasoning Process']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'disclosure of Expert Reasoning Process']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Evidentiary Ruling / Hearing on Tender of Opinion Evidence in Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the opinion contained in the final sentence of paragraph 13 of Mr Gray's affidavit sworn on 22 May 2008 should be admitted into evidence." 'Whether Mr Gray was sufficiently qualified by specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience to express the opinion.' 'Whether Mr Gray disclosed the reasoning process by which his opinion was reached so as to connect it with specialised knowledge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender of Mr Gray's opinion was rejected because, even if he were sufficiently qualified by practical experience, his affidavits did not disclose the reasoning process by which he concluded that the engine warmth was consistent with the assumed facts, so the Court could not link the opinion to any field of specialised knowledge.

Court Disposition

Tender of the opinion evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ['The tender of the opinion contained in the final sentence of paragraph 13 of the affidavit of Mr Gray sworn on 22 May 2008 is rejected by the Court.']