Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 957

Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 957

The report is admissible except for specific paragraphs and sentences in which the expert's opinions are unsupported by sufficient rationale or are mere assertions, inasmuch as the body of the report, with those exceptions, properly discloses assumptions and reasoning sufficient to meet admissibility requirements under section 79 of the Evidence Act and the principles set out in Makita v Sprowles.

Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Quintano; First Defendant: BW Rose Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: AWS Security Services Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome
Expert report admitted, subject to rejection of specified parts.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Expert Opinion, Standards for Expert Reports, Security in Licensed Premises
Evidence Professional Negligence Expert Evidence Admissibility of Expert Opinion Standards for Expert Reports Security in Licensed Premises

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Quintano

Plaintiff

BW Rose Pty Ltd

First Defendant

AWS Security Services Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert report sufficiently discloses facts or assumptions upon which opinions are based
  2. 2 Whether opinions set out in the report are based in specialised knowledge under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s79
  3. 3 Whether opinions are mere ipse dixit and lack underlying rationale

Ratio Decidendi

The report is admissible except for specific paragraphs and sentences in which the expert's opinions are unsupported by sufficient rationale or are mere assertions, inasmuch as the body of the report, with those exceptions, properly discloses assumptions and reasoning sufficient to meet admissibility requirements under section 79 of the Evidence Act and the principles set out in Makita v Sprowles.

Court Disposition

Expert report admitted, subject to rejection of specified parts.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 8-13 rejected.
  • Last sentence of paragraph 15 rejected.