McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Expert Evidence) [2021] FCA 370

McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Expert Evidence) [2021] FCA 370

It is inappropriate to proceed to an advance ruling under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) concerning the admissibility or discretionary exclusion of applicant's nominated experts where parties do not agree and no evidence has yet been adduced; objections as to independence or impartiality will be determined at initial trial as part of ordinary process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Class Action / Interlocutory Orders Regarding Expert Evidence; Pre Trial Case Management
Outcome
Orders vacating prior orders and listing matter for case management hearing; no advance ruling or preliminary hearing under s 192A Evidence Act or other case management powers; objections to expert evidence to be resolved at initial trial.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'concurrent Evidence (hot Tub)' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'impartiality of Expert Witnesses' 'case Management']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'class Actions'] ['expert Evidence' 'concurrent Evidence (hot Tub)' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'impartiality of Expert Witnesses' 'case Management']

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

Class Action / Interlocutory Orders Regarding Expert Evidence; Pre Trial Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether restrictions on communications with experts and appointment of referee should be maintained or modified' "Whether perceived lack of independence/impartiality of applicant's nominated experts affects admissibility or only weight" 'Whether advance ruling under s 192A Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is appropriate on admissibility/exclusion of expert evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

It is inappropriate to proceed to an advance ruling under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) concerning the admissibility or discretionary exclusion of applicant's nominated experts where parties do not agree and no evidence has yet been adduced; objections as to independence or impartiality will be determined at initial trial as part of ordinary process.

Court Disposition

Orders vacating prior orders and listing matter for case management hearing; no advance ruling or preliminary hearing under s 192A Evidence Act or other case management powers; objections to expert evidence to be resolved at initial trial.

Orders

  • ['Orders 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the orders dated 28 September 2020 and Order 4 of the orders dated 5 March 2021 be vacated.' 'The proceeding be listed for a case management hearing at 9am on 23 March 2021, at which time the Court will make orders as to expert evidence and any other topic relevant to...