Barton v Lake Macquarie City Council [2014] FCA 1103

Barton v Lake Macquarie City Council [2014] FCA 1103

Ms Kelly's evidence was inadmissible because the questions she addressed concerned whether Ms Carney's mediation work complied with national mediator standards or was appropriate, matters not raised by the pleadings and not issues in the proceeding. With the exception of Dr McGrath's answer to question 8(a), Dr...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Contract and Disability Discrimination Act Proceeding Concerning Objections to Expert Evidence / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Reply
Outcome
The evidence of Anne Sutherland Kelly was ruled inadmissible. Dr Barton was permitted to read Dr Helen McGrath's affidavit and tender her report in reply, except for the opinion given in answer to question 8(a).
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'evidence in Reply' 'relevance' 'ultimate Issue Opinion Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'workplace Bullying' 'reasonable Adjustments' 'unjustifiable Hardship']
['evidence' 'employment Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'evidence in Reply' 'relevance' 'ultimate Issue Opinion Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'workplace Bullying' 'reasonable Adjustments' 'unjustifiable Hardship']

Source-derived case record

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

Employment Contract and Disability Discrimination Act Proceeding Concerning Objections to Expert Evidence / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the expert reports tendered by the applicant were relevant and admissible.' 'Whether the expert reports were properly evidence in reply.' "Whether Dr McGrath's evidence usurped the function of the judge in determining the issues in dispute." "Whether late service and filing of the expert evidence, or its use in the applicant's case in chief, would be unfairly prejudicial to the respondent."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Kelly's evidence was inadmissible because the questions she addressed concerned whether Ms Carney's mediation work complied with national mediator standards or was appropriate, matters not raised by the pleadings and not issues in the proceeding. With the exception of Dr McGrath's answer to question 8(a), Dr McGrath's evidence was relevant to issues raised by the Council's defence, including the reasonableness of requiring Dr Barton to have direct contact with Dr Howe, to mediate with Dr Howe, and the reasonableness of the Council's steps to prevent bullying. The evidence could be admitted notwithstanding that some opinions also bore on the applicant's case in chief, because its use...

Court Disposition

The evidence of Anne Sutherland Kelly was ruled inadmissible. Dr Barton was permitted to read Dr Helen McGrath's affidavit and tender her report in reply, except for the opinion given in answer to question 8(a).

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Anne Sutherland Kelly is not admissible.' "The applicant may read the affidavit of Dr Helen McGrath and tender Dr McGrath's report in her case in reply, with the exception of the opinion she gives in answer to question 8(a)."]