Notaras & Anor v Hugh & Ors [2003] NSWSC 167

Notaras & Anor v Hugh & Ors [2003] NSWSC 167

Strict proof is not required for valuation opinion evidence based on knowledge built up from pieces of information in a way not capable of strict proof; that kind of knowledge may form part of the expert's specialised knowledge based on experience under s79. The Court distinguished such knowledge from information about specific instances or transactions, which must be strictly proved like assumptions generally required for expert evidence. The Court declined to exclude the evidence under s135 because the evidence was important to the plaintiffs' case and the same practical policy reasons justifying admission answered the unfair prejudice objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Common Law Division, Professional Negligence List / Reasons for Rulings on Admissibility of Valuation Evidence
Outcome
The Court justified the admissibility of valuation opinion evidence without strict proof of factual information where the information was of a kind not capable of strict proof, and declined to exclude Mr Marsh's evidence under s135; particular rulings were to be addressed in a later judgment.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'valuation Evidence' 'hearsay Rule' 'strict Proof of Assumptions' 'business Records' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence Under S135']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'valuation Evidence' 'hearsay Rule' 'strict Proof of Assumptions' 'business Records' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence Under S135']

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 Division, Professional Negligence List / Reasons for Rulings on Admissibility of Valuation Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether valuation opinion evidence from Mr Marsh was admissible where it was based on information built up in a way not capable of strict proof.' 'Whether strict proof is required for particular instances or transactions used as a basis for valuation opinion evidence.' "Whether Mr Marsh's evidence should be excluded under s135 of the Evidence Act 1995 because inability to test it was unfairly prejudicial." 'Whether Pt 36 r 13CA and Schedule K of the Supreme Court Rules affected admissibility of the expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Strict proof is not required for valuation opinion evidence based on knowledge built up from pieces of information in a way not capable of strict proof; that kind of knowledge may form part of the expert's specialised knowledge based on experience under s79. The Court distinguished such knowledge from information about specific instances or transactions, which must be strictly proved like assumptions generally required for expert evidence. The Court declined to exclude the evidence under s135 because the evidence was important to the plaintiffs' case and the same practical policy reasons justifying admission answered the unfair prejudice objection.

Court Disposition

The Court justified the admissibility of valuation opinion evidence without strict proof of factual information where the information was of a kind not capable of strict proof, and declined to exclude Mr Marsh's evidence under s135; particular rulings were to be addressed in a later judgment.

Orders

  • []