Wright v Optus Administration & Anor (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1719

Wright v Optus Administration & Anor (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1719

The reports of Dr Roberts are admitted as exhibits because, notwithstanding some objections, the evidence is relevant and falls within the permissible scope of expert psychiatric testimony as recognised in Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd, rather than being excluded by the principle in Ramsay v Watson.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Reports admitted as exhibits
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Reports']
['evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Reports']

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

Civil / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Admissibility of psychiatrist's expert evidence" 'Relevance of expert evidence to liability and foreseeability']

Ratio Decidendi

The reports of Dr Roberts are admitted as exhibits because, notwithstanding some objections, the evidence is relevant and falls within the permissible scope of expert psychiatric testimony as recognised in Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd, rather than being excluded by the principle in Ramsay v Watson.

Court Disposition

Reports admitted as exhibits

Orders

  • ['I admit the reports of John Albert Roberts as exhibits 1D-5(1) and 1D-6']