McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Limited (No 9) [2011] FCA 1138

McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Limited (No 9) [2011] FCA 1138

The application to exclude or excise the identified parts of the expert reports and joint expert report was rejected because there was no prejudice demonstrated to the applicant; the admissions were properly limited to the evidence or opinions of the experts who were called; and there was no danger that the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing under ss 135 or 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The judicial practice is to limit the admissibility of joint expert reports to the opinions of the experts actually called, and this was not a case where the process of joint reporting was subverted.

Parties
Applicant: Bruce McHugh; First Respondent: Australian Jockey Club Limited; Second Respondent: Victoria Racing Club Limited; Third Respondent: Australian Racing Board Limited; Fifth Respondent: Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Limited; Sixth Respondent: Australian Turf Club Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Application in Existing Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Exclusion of Evidence
Outcome
Application rejected
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Joint Expert Reports, Exclusion of Evidence, Section 135 Evidence Act, Section 136 Evidence Act
Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Joint Expert Reports Exclusion of Evidence Section 135 Evidence Act Section 136 Evidence Act

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce McHugh

Applicant

Australian Jockey Club Limited

First Respondent

Victoria Racing Club Limited

Second Respondent

Australian Racing Board Limited

Third Respondent

Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Limited

Fifth Respondent

Australian Turf Club Limited

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application in Existing Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Exclusion of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain expert evidence should be excluded or excised where an opposing party does not call an expert who participated in joint conferencing and reporting.
  2. 2 Application of ss 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to possibly unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or confusing expert evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The application to exclude or excise the identified parts of the expert reports and joint expert report was rejected because there was no prejudice demonstrated to the applicant; the admissions were properly limited to the evidence or opinions of the experts who were called; and there was no danger that the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing under ss 135 or 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The judicial practice is to limit the admissibility of joint expert reports to the opinions of the experts actually called, and this was not a case where the process of joint reporting was subverted.

Court Disposition

Application rejected

Orders

  • The application to exclude or excise the evidence identified in MFI 39 is rejected.