Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd v Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 1059

Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd v Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 1059

At this stage of proceedings, the evidence does not warrant revisiting the previous ruling admitting Mr Morgan's challenged expert evidence. The objections do not clearly demonstrate that the opinions are not based substantially on specialised knowledge. Final utility and reliability of the evidence should be considered when all evidence and submissions have been received.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd ACN 139 567 598; Second Defendant: Johannes Hendrik Boshoff
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Corporations Law Proceeding / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Ruling: Prior ruling on admissibility of Mr Morgan's expert evidence stands; objection not acceded to at this stage.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Index Arbitrage Trading, Market Manipulation, Admissibility of Opinion Evidence
Corporations Law Evidence Law Expert Evidence Index Arbitrage Trading Market Manipulation 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd ACN 139 567 598

First Defendant

Johannes Hendrik Boshoff

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations Law Proceeding / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether opinion evidence of Mr Morgan is based substantially on specialised knowledge for the purposes of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether previous ruling on admissibility of expert evidence should be revisited in light of cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

At this stage of proceedings, the evidence does not warrant revisiting the previous ruling admitting Mr Morgan's challenged expert evidence. The objections do not clearly demonstrate that the opinions are not based substantially on specialised knowledge. Final utility and reliability of the evidence should be considered when all evidence and submissions have been received.

Court Disposition

Ruling: Prior ruling on admissibility of Mr Morgan's expert evidence stands; objection not acceded to at this stage.

Orders

  • The Court makes the ruling in paragraph 36 of the reasons published as Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1059.