McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Additional Expert Conclave) [2022] FCA 1596

McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Additional Expert Conclave) [2022] FCA 1596

Because both parties accepted that the AHS data should be obtained and reanalysed, the data was relevant to a disputed alleged analytic error in the De Roos and Andreotti studies, the National Cancer Institute's confidentiality restrictions explained why raw data could be provided only to experts, and the experts could generate outputs enabling the parties and Court to test their analyses, there was no insuperable admissibility problem. With the parties' indicated consent to any waiver under s 190 and provided the supplementary report disclosed the basis of the opinions expressed, orders facilitating the data transfer, communications and supplementary conclave were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Expert Evidence / Additional Expert Conclave and Case Management Orders
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made facilitating provision of AHS data to experts and requiring a supplementary expert conclave.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'reliability of Scientific Journal Articles' 'expert Conclaves' 'confidential Scientific Data' 'data Transfer Agreement']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'reliability of Scientific Journal Articles' 'expert Conclaves' 'confidential Scientific Data' 'data Transfer Agreement']

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

Interlocutory Application in Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Expert Evidence / Additional Expert Conclave and Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties should be permitted to communicate with the independent barrister facilitating expert conclaves to facilitate provision of a data transfer agreement and AHS data to experts.' 'Whether a supplementary conclave should occur to address alleged analytic errors in two epidemiology studies.' 'Whether expert opinion evidence about the reliability of scientific journal articles, based on analysis of underlying data not available in raw form to the Court or lawyers, would face an admissibility problem.' 'How confidentiality restrictions imposed by the National Cancer Institute on personal medical data should be accommodated.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because both parties accepted that the AHS data should be obtained and reanalysed, the data was relevant to a disputed alleged analytic error in the De Roos and Andreotti studies, the National Cancer Institute's confidentiality restrictions explained why raw data could be provided only to experts, and the experts could generate outputs enabling the parties and Court to test their analyses, there was no insuperable admissibility problem. With the parties' indicated consent to any waiver under s 190 and provided the supplementary report disclosed the basis of the opinions expressed, orders facilitating the data transfer, communications and supplementary conclave were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made facilitating provision of AHS data to experts and requiring a supplementary expert conclave.

Orders

  • ["The respondents be granted leave file and serve any rejoinders to the applicant's replies by 31 January 2023." 'By 17 February 2023, the parties provide a bundle of specified expert reports, joint reports and the Orders dated 28 September 2022 to the Associate to Justice Lee for provision to Professor Sir John...