Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1438

Ibrahimi & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1438

The report and opinions of Mr Pike were excluded because he was not appropriately qualified to express certain opinions (e.g. meteorological opinions), failed to expose the reasoning process that led to his opinions, did not explain sources or applicability of key formulae, failed to sufficiently identify his...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiffs: Median Nazar Ibrahimi & Ors; Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Expert evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Expert Opinion Evidence, Admissibility of Expert Report, Expert Qualifications, Reasoning Process in Expert Reports
Evidence Expert Opinion Evidence Admissibility of Expert Report Expert Qualifications Reasoning Process in Expert Reports

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Median Nazar Ibrahimi & Ors

Plaintiffs

Commonwealth of Australia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert report of Roderick Douglas Pike is admissible under s. 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Pike is appropriately qualified to give the opinions expressed
  3. 3 Whether the reasoning process leading to those opinions is adequately disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The report and opinions of Mr Pike were excluded because he was not appropriately qualified to express certain opinions (e.g. meteorological opinions), failed to expose the reasoning process that led to his opinions, did not explain sources or applicability of key formulae, failed to sufficiently identify his assumptions, and some opinions lacked relevance to issues in the proceedings. As such, the requirements for admissibility of expert evidence were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Expert evidence excluded

Orders

  • The parts of Mr Pike’s report to which objection was taken are excluded from evidence.