Redman v Verticon Group Limited [2009] NSWDC 37

Redman v Verticon Group Limited [2009] NSWDC 37

Mr Hipwell was not permitted to be qualified as an expert because his affidavits did not state his expert qualifications, the plaintiff was not given timely notice of the nature of any expert evidence within the 28-day period required for fairness, and his close involvement as an employee and representative of the defendant raised concerns about independence and safe reliance on any expert opinion. His factual affidavit evidence was not excluded because, as chief financial officer and company secretary involved in the defendant's affairs, he was entitled to give evidence about factual matters and company practices within his knowledge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Applications During Hearing Concerning Qualification of a Witness as an Expert and Exclusion of Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Application to qualify witness as an expert refused; application to exclude evidence refused.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'qualification of Expert Witness' 'expert Reports' 'independence of Expert Witnesses' 'apprehended Bias' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'qualification of Expert Witness' 'expert Reports' 'independence of Expert Witnesses' 'apprehended Bias' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence']

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 / Applications During Hearing Concerning Qualification of a Witness as an Expert and Exclusion of Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Chris Hipwell should be qualified to give expert evidence for the defendant.' "Whether all of Mr Hipwell's affidavit evidence should be excluded." "Whether Mr Hipwell's affidavits complied with requirements for expert reports, including stating qualifications and service of the substance of expert evidence." "Whether Mr Hipwell's connection with the defendant affected his independence as a proposed expert witness."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hipwell was not permitted to be qualified as an expert because his affidavits did not state his expert qualifications, the plaintiff was not given timely notice of the nature of any expert evidence within the 28-day period required for fairness, and his close involvement as an employee and representative of the defendant raised concerns about independence and safe reliance on any expert opinion. His factual affidavit evidence was not excluded because, as chief financial officer and company secretary involved in the defendant's affairs, he was entitled to give evidence about factual matters and company practices within his knowledge.

Court Disposition

Application to qualify witness as an expert refused; application to exclude evidence refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to qualify witness as an expert refused.' 'Application to exclude evidence refused.']