Liverpool City Council v McGraw-Hill Financial Inc (No 2) [2018] FCA 686

Liverpool City Council v McGraw-Hill Financial Inc (No 2) [2018] FCA 686

Dr Shi lacked specialised knowledge, based on her training, study or experience, in structured finance products or the valuation thereof, and did not show she was qualified to express the opinions in her report—her evidence was therefore inadmissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations, Corporations and Corporate Insolvency / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Dr Shi's report of 25 January 2018 rejected as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'structured Finance' 'financial Valuation']
['evidence' 'commercial Law'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'structured Finance' 'financial Valuation']

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

Commercial and Corporations, Corporations and Corporate Insolvency / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Min Shi's report is admissible as expert evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)"]

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Shi lacked specialised knowledge, based on her training, study or experience, in structured finance products or the valuation thereof, and did not show she was qualified to express the opinions in her report—her evidence was therefore inadmissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Dr Shi's report of 25 January 2018 rejected as inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The report of Dr Min Shi dated 25 January 2018 be rejected.']