Street & 7 Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Limited & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 691

Street & 7 Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Limited & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 691

The admission of expert evidence requires sufficient disclosure of the reasoning as per Makita v Sprowles, but challenging the accuracy of steps is a matter of weight, not admissibility. However, valuation reports addressing irrelevant issues (such as current market value scenarios unrelated to the measure of damages under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act) must be excluded for irrelevance; further, when foundational facts are only admitted for a limited purpose, evidence built on broader assumptions must be rejected.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Joan Street; Second Plaintiff: Ros Dwyer; Third Plaintiff: Michael Hesse; Fourth Plaintiff: Glen Eight Pty Ltd; Fifth Plaintiff: Susan Hesse; Sixth Plaintiff: Robert Simkin; Seventh Plaintiff: Glen Federick Billington; Eighth Plaintiff: Fiona Jeanette Billington; First Defendant: Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Metro Edgley Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Peter Hearne; Fourth Defendant: Warwick Doughty
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (rulings on Admissibility of Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Expert evidence partly admitted and partly rejected on grounds of relevance and statutory compliance.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Measure of Damages, Relevance of Expert Opinions, Valuation Evidence
Evidence Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Measure of Damages Relevance of Expert Opinions Valuation 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Street

First Plaintiff

Ros Dwyer

Second Plaintiff

Michael Hesse

Third Plaintiff

Glen Eight Pty Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff

Susan Hesse

Fifth Plaintiff

Robert Simkin

Sixth Plaintiff

Glen Federick Billington

Seventh Plaintiff

Fiona Jeanette Billington

Eighth Plaintiff

Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Metro Edgley Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Peter Hearne

Third Defendant

Warwick Doughty

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory (rulings on Admissibility of Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert reports of Graham Whiteley, Phillip Edmonds, and Renzo & Associates (Dr Tonin) should be admitted as evidence
  2. 2 Whether the expert evidence sufficiently discloses rationale as required by Makita v Sprowles
  3. 3 Whether the valuation evidence addresses relevant issues, particularly the proper measure of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The admission of expert evidence requires sufficient disclosure of the reasoning as per Makita v Sprowles, but challenging the accuracy of steps is a matter of weight, not admissibility. However, valuation reports addressing irrelevant issues (such as current market value scenarios unrelated to the measure of damages under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act) must be excluded for irrelevance; further, when foundational facts are only admitted for a limited purpose, evidence built on broader assumptions must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Expert evidence partly admitted and partly rejected on grounds of relevance and statutory compliance.

Orders

  • Admits paragraphs 9 and 10 of Graham Whiteley's report dated 10 October 2006.
  • Rejects the affidavit of Phillip Edmonds sworn 7 June 2006 in toto.