NAB v Garry & anor [2002] NSWSC 1265

NAB v Garry & anor [2002] NSWSC 1265

The expert report by Mr Petroni is admissible as evidence to the extent that it relates to matters within his expertise as a clinical psychologist, as the report sets out a clear process of reasoning based upon supplied history and clinical observation. Parts of the report that express opinions as to credibility or go beyond the proper field of expertise are excluded. The fact the report is unsworn does not, in this case, warrant its exclusion. The prejudice to the plaintiff is not unfair within the meaning of s 135 Evidence Act 1995, particularly as the plaintiff has had an opportunity to obtain its own expert evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome
Report admitted (with exclusions)
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Reports' 'prejudice and Probative Value' 'contracts Review Act Defences']
['evidence' 'contracts'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Reports' 'prejudice and Probative Value' 'contracts Review Act Defences']

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 on Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the report by a clinical psychologist relating to the first defendant should be admitted into evidence' 'Test for admissibility of expert opinion evidence' 'Whether parts of the report go beyond the expertise of the author and should be excluded' 'Whether the report is unfairly prejudicial under s 135 Evidence Act 1995']

Ratio Decidendi

The expert report by Mr Petroni is admissible as evidence to the extent that it relates to matters within his expertise as a clinical psychologist, as the report sets out a clear process of reasoning based upon supplied history and clinical observation. Parts of the report that express opinions as to credibility or go beyond the proper field of expertise are excluded. The fact the report is unsworn does not, in this case, warrant its exclusion. The prejudice to the plaintiff is not unfair within the meaning of s 135 Evidence Act 1995, particularly as the plaintiff has had an opportunity to obtain its own expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Report admitted (with exclusions)

Orders

  • ['The report of the clinical psychologist is admitted, subject to exclusion of (a) opinions as to credibility of the first defendant and (b) passages beyond the demonstrated field of expertise.']