Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 1) [2016] NSWSC 1375

Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 1) [2016] NSWSC 1375

Commander Saunders possessed sufficient operational experience to qualify as an expert; the reasoning for his opinion is adequately disclosed in the affidavit; and there is no substantial risk of unfair prejudice outweighing the probative value, particularly as plaintiffs are able to respond with their own expert evidence. Thus, the challenged portions of the affidavit are admitted.

Parties
Plaintiffs: Median Nazar Ibrahimi & Ors; Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Objection to Affidavit Evidence—interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Expert Opinion, Exclusion of Evidence for Unfair Prejudice
Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility of Expert Opinion Exclusion of Evidence for Unfair Prejudice

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Median Nazar Ibrahimi & Ors

Plaintiffs

Commonwealth of Australia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Objection to Affidavit Evidence—interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Commander Saunders was appropriately qualified to give expert opinion evidence
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 84 and 85 of Saunders' affidavit are admissible as expert opinion under s. 79 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether opinion evidence should be excluded under s. 135 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) due to unfair prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Commander Saunders possessed sufficient operational experience to qualify as an expert; the reasoning for his opinion is adequately disclosed in the affidavit; and there is no substantial risk of unfair prejudice outweighing the probative value, particularly as plaintiffs are able to respond with their own expert evidence. Thus, the challenged portions of the affidavit are admitted.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

  • Objection to paragraphs 84 and 85 of Mathew David Saunders' affidavit dismissed; those paragraphs are admitted as evidence.