Ample Source International Limited v Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd; In the Matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited (No 5) [2011] FCA 864

Ample Source International Limited v Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd; In the Matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited (No 5) [2011] FCA 864

Mr Hillam's evidence was inadmissible because it was not based on his own field work, relied on reports written or produced by others that were not disclosed or identified, did not state the facts or assumptions on which the opinion was based, and exposed no reasoning process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Federal Court Proceedings / Ruling on Plaintiff's Objection to Provisionally Admitted Evidence During Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's objection upheld; the identified evidence was rejected as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'facts and Assumptions Underlying Expert Opinion' 'evidence Based on Reports Written by Others']
['evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'facts and Assumptions Underlying Expert Opinion' 'evidence Based on Reports Written by Others']

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

Evidence Ruling in Federal Court Proceedings / Ruling on Plaintiff's Objection to Provisionally Admitted Evidence During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Hillam's evidence that three Wentworth tenements contained no iron ore was admissible as expert opinion to prove that fact." 'Whether expert opinion evidence based on reports written or produced by others was admissible where the reports were not identified or disclosed and no reasoning process was exposed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hillam's evidence was inadmissible because it was not based on his own field work, relied on reports written or produced by others that were not disclosed or identified, did not state the facts or assumptions on which the opinion was based, and exposed no reasoning process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's objection upheld; the identified evidence was rejected as inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence at page 474 lines 12-13 and page 476 lines 8-9, 21-22 of the transcript is rejected.']