Fogg v Kane Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited and Anor; Fogg v Les Quatre Musketeers Pty Ltd (t/as Plastamasta South Coast) (No. 4) [2014] NSWSC 1822

Fogg v Kane Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited and Anor; Fogg v Les Quatre Musketeers Pty Ltd (t/as Plastamasta South Coast) (No. 4) [2014] NSWSC 1822

The reports of Mr Contoyannis and Mr Campion were not admissible because they failed to satisfy s.79 Evidence Act 1995: the opinions were not shown to be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from training, study or experience, and instead advanced factual propositions and legal conclusions about responsibilities of the parties that were matters for the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Damages Claim for Personal Injury / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Liability Reports
Outcome
The tender of the reports of Mr Contoyannis and Mr Campion was rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Reports on Liability' 'specialised Knowledge Under S.79 Evidence Act 1995']
['evidence' 'personal Injury'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Reports on Liability' 'specialised Knowledge Under S.79 Evidence Act 1995']

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

Damages Claim for Personal Injury / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Liability Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the liability reports of Mr Contoyannis and Mr Campion were admissible as expert evidence.' 'Whether the opinions in the reports satisfied s.79 Evidence Act 1995 as opinions based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge derived from training, study or experience.' 'Whether the reports impermissibly expressed factual propositions and legal conclusions for the Court to determine.']

Ratio Decidendi

The reports of Mr Contoyannis and Mr Campion were not admissible because they failed to satisfy s.79 Evidence Act 1995: the opinions were not shown to be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from training, study or experience, and instead advanced factual propositions and legal conclusions about responsibilities of the parties that were matters for the Court.

Court Disposition

The tender of the reports of Mr Contoyannis and Mr Campion was rejected.

Orders

  • ['The tender of the reports of Mr Contoyannis dated 16 February 2012 (MFI 19) is rejected.' 'The tender of the report of Mr Campion dated 18 February 2013 (MFI 22) is rejected.' 'The tender of the joint report of Messrs Contoyannis and Campion dated 22 November 2013 is rejected.' 'There is no need for concurrent...