Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 24) [2013] NSWSC 1677

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 24) [2013] NSWSC 1677

The report was rejected because material assumptions underpinning Mr Millar's opinion were not proved: the machinery and equipment lists were admitted only for a limited purpose under section 136 and not as proof of their contents, and there was no evidence proving assumptions about funding, staff, facilities, raw materials and production capacity. The lack of evidence proving the assumptions was fatal to admissibility.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Common Law / Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
The report of Rick Millar dated 27 July 2012 was rejected.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'opinion Based on Assumptions and Documents' 'limitation of Evidence Under Section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995']
['evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'opinion Based on Assumptions and Documents' 'limitation of Evidence Under Section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995']

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

Common Law / Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the report of Rick Millar dated 27 July 2012 was admissible where it was based on assumptions and documents not proved as evidence of their contents.' 'Whether exhibits YY1 and YY2 should be limited under section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 in the same way as exhibits WW and XX.']

Ratio Decidendi

The report was rejected because material assumptions underpinning Mr Millar's opinion were not proved: the machinery and equipment lists were admitted only for a limited purpose under section 136 and not as proof of their contents, and there was no evidence proving assumptions about funding, staff, facilities, raw materials and production capacity. The lack of evidence proving the assumptions was fatal to admissibility.

Court Disposition

The report of Rick Millar dated 27 July 2012 was rejected.

Orders

  • ['The report of Rick Millar dated 27 July 2012 is rejected.' 'Exhibit YY1 is limited under section 136 in the same way as exhibits WW and XX.' 'Exhibit YY2 is limited under section 136 in the same way as exhibits WW and XX.']