McKenzie v Day (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 235

McKenzie v Day (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 235

The report of Mr Cockbain may be adduced excluding the use of the word 'camouflage'; his expertise extends to commenting on visual cues for steps, but language implying intentional disguise must be redacted.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lesley McKenzie; Defendant: Lucy Day
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application to adduce expert evidence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Procedural Rulings, Admissibility of Expert Reports
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Procedural Rulings Admissibility of Expert Reports

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley McKenzie

Plaintiff

Lucy Day

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's expert report should be admitted as evidence
  2. 2 Whether the expert's use of the word 'camouflage' is appropriate and admissible
  3. 3 Whether it is within the expert's expertise to comment on the need for contrasting colours to draw attention to steps

Ratio Decidendi

The report of Mr Cockbain may be adduced excluding the use of the word 'camouflage'; his expertise extends to commenting on visual cues for steps, but language implying intentional disguise must be redacted.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce expert evidence allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph [63] of the expert report to be redacted by deleting the words 'created a camouflage and'.
  • The reference to 'camouflage created' in the caption to Figure 5 to be struck out as agreed.