Mulkearns v Chandos Developments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1084

Mulkearns v Chandos Developments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1084

The evidence was inadmissible because the plaintiff did not demonstrate the specialised knowledge necessary to qualify as an expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995; keeping a database of sale prices was insufficient to establish expertise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Evidence ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'valuation' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence']
['evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'valuation' 'admissibility of Opinion 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Is the plaintiff sufficiently qualified to give opinion evidence as an expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995?' 'What constitutes minimum expertise for admissibility of expert opinion evidence?']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was inadmissible because the plaintiff did not demonstrate the specialised knowledge necessary to qualify as an expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995; keeping a database of sale prices was insufficient to establish expertise.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's affidavit evidence on valuation inadmissible"]