Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1751

Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1751

The letter of 13 May 2013 is not admissible as evidence against either defendant because it is not an expert opinion based on specialised knowledge as required by s 79 Evidence Act, and is not otherwise admissible as an admission under the exceptions to the opinion rule.

Parties
Plaintiff: Alan Donald; First Defendant: Rail Corporation of New South Wales; Second Defendant: Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidentiary Ruling – Admissibility of Letter as Evidence
Outcome
Tender of letter rejected
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Opinion Evidence, Business Records, Admissions
Evidence Admissibility of Opinion Evidence Business Records Admissions

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Donald

Plaintiff

Rail Corporation of New South Wales

First Defendant

Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidentiary Ruling – Admissibility of Letter as Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letter of 13 May 2013 is admissible as evidence against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether opinion in the letter is an admissible expert opinion under s 79 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the letter constitutes an admissible business record under s 69 Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 13 May 2013 is not admissible as evidence against either defendant because it is not an expert opinion based on specialised knowledge as required by s 79 Evidence Act, and is not otherwise admissible as an admission under the exceptions to the opinion rule.

Court Disposition

Tender of letter rejected

Orders

  • Tender of the letter of 13 May 2013 is rejected as evidence against both the first and second defendants.