Clear Wealth Pty Ltd v Kwong [2012] NSWSC 561

Clear Wealth Pty Ltd v Kwong [2012] NSWSC 561

The expert report was admissible because Mr Khoury's expertise was not challenged, the ambiguities created by the use of "we", passive language and the identification of method could be clarified when he gave evidence, and the report, read as a whole and in context, sufficiently disclosed observations arising from computer forensic inspection. The task was at the low end of opinion evidence, the expert had acknowledged the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, and the report stated the assumptions or information supplied to him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings; Procedural Ruling on Evidence / Defendants' Objection to Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome
The defendants' objection to admissibility of the expert report was rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Reports' 'computer Forensic Evidence' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Reports' 'computer Forensic Evidence' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct']

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

Equity Division Proceedings; Procedural Ruling on Evidence / Defendants' Objection to Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Michael Khoury's computer forensic expert report was admissible under s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the report\'s use of the words "we" and passive expressions such as "it was found" made it inadmissible.' "Whether an ambiguity about which method was used to identify USB devices connected to Mr Kwong's desktop made the report inadmissible." 'Whether the report sufficiently disclosed how the expert applied his expertise to reach his conclusions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The expert report was admissible because Mr Khoury's expertise was not challenged, the ambiguities created by the use of "we", passive language and the identification of method could be clarified when he gave evidence, and the report, read as a whole and in context, sufficiently disclosed observations arising from computer forensic inspection. The task was at the low end of opinion evidence, the expert had acknowledged the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, and the report stated the assumptions or information supplied to him.

Court Disposition

The defendants' objection to admissibility of the expert report was rejected.

Orders

  • ['The report is admissible.']