Alelaimat v Synergy Scaffolding Services [2020] NSWSC 1495

Alelaimat v Synergy Scaffolding Services [2020] NSWSC 1495

Questions asked of Mr Hamka seeking to elicit more or less directly his view about who employed whom on the site were inadmissible because they concerned employment status, a matter of mixed fact and law, and offended the opinion rule under s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidence Ruling During Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Question and answer rejected.
Legal Topics
['opinion Evidence' 'employment Status' 'vicarious Liability' 'independent Contractors']
['evidence' 'torts'] ['opinion Evidence' 'employment Status' 'vicarious Liability' 'independent Contractors']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings / Evidence Ruling During Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether questions to the first defendant's Operations Manager seeking his view about who employed scaffolders on the site were admissible." "Whether evidence about a person's employment status was inadmissible opinion evidence because it involved mixed fact and law."]

Ratio Decidendi

Questions asked of Mr Hamka seeking to elicit more or less directly his view about who employed whom on the site were inadmissible because they concerned employment status, a matter of mixed fact and law, and offended the opinion rule under s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Question and answer rejected.

Orders

  • ['I reject the question and answer.']