Ballard v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1460

Ballard v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1460

The report of Mr McIntyre dated 23 December 1996 is not admitted as evidence, as its admission would be unfairly prejudicial and falls within s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995. The lapse of time renders the facts underlying the report unverifiable and unavailable for adequate cross-examination, and the report does not meet the procedural requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for expert evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Voir Dire / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Report and previous representations not admitted as evidence.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Reports' 'business Records Exception' 'expert Code of Conduct' 'unfair Prejudice' 'compliance With Uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'hearsay']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Expert Reports' 'business Records Exception' 'expert Code of Conduct' 'unfair Prejudice' 'compliance With Uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'hearsay']

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

Voir Dire / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr McIntyre's report of 23 December 1996 is admissible as evidence under the business records exception in section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether unfair prejudice under section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 justifies exclusion of the report.' 'Whether there was compliance with the applicable Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The report of Mr McIntyre dated 23 December 1996 is not admitted as evidence, as its admission would be unfairly prejudicial and falls within s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995. The lapse of time renders the facts underlying the report unverifiable and unavailable for adequate cross-examination, and the report does not meet the procedural requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Report and previous representations not admitted as evidence.

Orders

  • ['Report of 23 December 1996 of Mr Ian McIntyre of EPM not admitted as to previous representations, see section 135 of Evidence Act 1995.']