Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Emerald Ocean Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 740

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Emerald Ocean Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 740

The objections were dismissed because each proposed witness had specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience and the opinions in the reports were wholly or substantially based on that specialised knowledge. Criticisms concerning EMS expertise, assumptions, methodology, identification of subjects and small sample sizes could be explored in cross-examination and went to the weight of the reports rather than their admissibility; admission caused no unfairness requiring exclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Proceeding Concerning Efficacy of Electrical Muscle Stimulation Devices / Hearing of Objections to Admissibility of Expert Reports
Outcome
Objections dismissed; expert reports admissible.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'admissibility Under Evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 79' 'specialised Knowledge Based on Training, Study or Experience' 'weight Versus Admissibility' 'electrical Muscle Stimulation Devices']
['evidence' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'admissibility Under Evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 79' 'specialised Knowledge Based on Training, Study or Experience' 'weight Versus Admissibility' 'electrical Muscle Stimulation Devices']

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 Proceeding Concerning Efficacy of Electrical Muscle Stimulation Devices / Hearing of Objections to Admissibility of Expert Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the reports of Mr Graeme Wright, Dr Jefferson Coombes and Dr Anthony Bakker were admissible as expert opinion evidence under Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 79.' 'Whether each proposed expert had specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience.' 'Whether each opinion was wholly or substantially based on that specialised knowledge.' 'Whether criticisms of methodology, assumptions, identification of test subjects and sample size required exclusion or went to weight.']

Ratio Decidendi

The objections were dismissed because each proposed witness had specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience and the opinions in the reports were wholly or substantially based on that specialised knowledge. Criticisms concerning EMS expertise, assumptions, methodology, identification of subjects and small sample sizes could be explored in cross-examination and went to the weight of the reports rather than their admissibility; admission caused no unfairness requiring exclusion.

Court Disposition

Objections dismissed; expert reports admissible.

Orders

  • ['The objections to the admission of the reports of Mr Graeme Wright, Dr Jefferson Coombes and Dr Anthony Bakker be dismissed.']