Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 384

Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 384

The expert report was rejected because it failed to comply with the Expert Code of Conduct, did not satisfy the threshold for admissibility under s 79 of the Evidence Act and Dasreef (being founded on unstated or unexplained assumptions rather than specialised knowledge), and had little probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice and risk of wasted time under s 135 of the Evidence Act.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Armstrong Consulting Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: Kenneth Alan Armstrong; First Defendant: Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: ERA Insurance Services Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Expense Reduction Analysts Australasia Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Stuart Roy Michael; Fifth Defendant: Ronald Clucas; Sixth Defendant: Charles Frederick Marfleet; Seventh Defendant: ERAGICS Limited; Eighth Defendant: Expense Reduction Analysts International Limited; Ninth Defendant: Keith John Chapman; Tenth Defendant: Anthony Frederick Dormer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Application to Exclude Expert Report
Outcome
Expert report rejected
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Expert Witness Code of Conduct, Admissibility of Expert Reports, Opinion Evidence, Probative Value, Prejudice, Civil Procedure
Evidence Expert Evidence Expert Witness Code of Conduct Admissibility of Expert Reports Opinion Evidence Probative Value Prejudice Civil Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Armstrong Consulting Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Kenneth Alan Armstrong

Third Plaintiff

Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd

First Defendant

ERA Insurance Services Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Expense Reduction Analysts Australasia Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Stuart Roy Michael

Fourth Defendant

Ronald Clucas

Fifth Defendant

Charles Frederick Marfleet

Sixth Defendant

ERAGICS Limited

Seventh Defendant

Expense Reduction Analysts International Limited

Eighth Defendant

Keith John Chapman

Ninth Defendant

Anthony Frederick Dormer

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Application to Exclude Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' expert report complied with the Expert Code of Conduct under UCPR r 31.23
  2. 2 Whether the expert report is admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 and the principles in Dasreef
  3. 3 Whether the report should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The expert report was rejected because it failed to comply with the Expert Code of Conduct, did not satisfy the threshold for admissibility under s 79 of the Evidence Act and Dasreef (being founded on unstated or unexplained assumptions rather than specialised knowledge), and had little probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice and risk of wasted time under s 135 of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Expert report rejected

Orders

  • The expert report of Joe Willis dated 25 August 2015 is rejected.