H M & O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram (No.3) [2011] NSWSC 565

The objection to the evidence of Mr Crellin is dismissed and the evidence is admitted as the underlying reports, photographs, and records are admissible as supplements to his observations and tests, with the limitation that the court is not bound by his opinions as to compliance.

Parties: First Plaintiff: H M & O Investments Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Teach & Play Pty Limited; First Defendant: Bradley Phillip Ingram; Second Defendant: Glenda Louise Ingram
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 09 June 2011
Procedural Posture: Procedural and Other Rulings / Objection to Evidence (interlocutory Ruling)
Outcome: Evidence admitted
Legal Topics: Objection to Evidence, Admissibility of Expert Reports, Standard Compliance Evidence

Evidence Objection to Evidence Admissibility of Expert Reports Standard Compliance 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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

H M & O Investments Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Teach & Play Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Bradley Phillip Ingram

First Defendant

Glenda Louise Ingram

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Objection to Evidence (interlocutory Ruling)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the affidavit evidence of Mr Crellin, including annexures and exhibits, is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

Objection dismissed and evidence comprising affidavit of Mr Crellin, annexure A, exhibit A and exhibit GC2 admitted