Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd v Viropoulos (No 2) [2015] FCA 974

Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd v Viropoulos (No 2) [2015] FCA 974

Most challenged parts of Mr Turner's report were rejected or refused because they were not shown to be based on his specialised knowledge, did not disclose the reasoning or basis for the opinions, addressed matters for the Court or amounted to submission, or were excluded under s 135 as likely to cause undue waste of time; section 2.10 was also rejected on the additional ground of prejudice from late service, while sections 2.12 and 2.13 were admitted subject to relevance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Evidence; Objections to Expert Report / Reasons for Advance Rulings on Admissibility Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Respondents' objections substantially upheld; parts of the expert report rejected or refused, sections 2.12 and 2.13 admitted subject to relevance, and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility' 'specialised Knowledge' 'late Service of Expert Report' 'probative Value and Undue Waste of Time']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility' 'specialised Knowledge' 'late Service of Expert Report' 'probative Value and Undue Waste of Time']

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

Evidence; Objections to Expert Report / Reasons for Advance Rulings on Admissibility Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of Mr Dennis Turner's expert report were admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)." "Whether the report disclosed Mr Turner's expertise and reasoning sufficiently to show that opinions were wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience." 'Whether parts of the report should be refused under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time.' 'Whether late service of the report caused prejudice to the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Most challenged parts of Mr Turner's report were rejected or refused because they were not shown to be based on his specialised knowledge, did not disclose the reasoning or basis for the opinions, addressed matters for the Court or amounted to submission, or were excluded under s 135 as likely to cause undue waste of time; section 2.10 was also rejected on the additional ground of prejudice from late service, while sections 2.12 and 2.13 were admitted subject to relevance.

Court Disposition

Respondents' objections substantially upheld; parts of the expert report rejected or refused, sections 2.12 and 2.13 admitted subject to relevance, and costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Costs reserved.']