Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Scholz [2022] FCA 1188

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Scholz [2022] FCA 1188

Mr Kavanagh's affidavit failed to demonstrate that he possessed specialised knowledge required by s 79(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and there was insufficient factual basis connecting his opinions to such knowledge. Therefore, the evidence is excluded by operation of s 76(1).

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Expert evidence in Mr Kavanagh's affidavit rejected as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'financial Services Licensing' 'opinion Evidence']
['evidence' 'corporations Law'] ['expert Evidence' 'financial Services Licensing' 'opinion Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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

Commercial and Corporations / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Kavanagh's affidavit contains admissible expert evidence under s 79 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)" 'Whether the opinion evidence is excluded under s 76 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kavanagh's affidavit failed to demonstrate that he possessed specialised knowledge required by s 79(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and there was insufficient factual basis connecting his opinions to such knowledge. Therefore, the evidence is excluded by operation of s 76(1).

Court Disposition

Expert evidence in Mr Kavanagh's affidavit rejected as inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['Evidence of Mr Kavanagh (as expert opinion) excluded under s 76 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)']