Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport and Recreation Club Inc [2019] NSWDC 426

Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport and Recreation Club Inc [2019] NSWDC 426

Mr Ryan's long experience as a rugby league player, coach, commentator and analyst gave him specialised knowledge about tackling objectives and coaching methods in adult rugby league. Any differences between elite professional rugby league and second division Country Rugby League went to weight, not admissibility. The challenged opinions about tackling consequences, causation and intention were sufficiently based on stated assumptions, observations and specialised knowledge, and were not excluded by the basis rule or merely because they approached ultimate issues.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Proceeding Involving Alleged Rugby League Spear Tackle or Dangerous Throw / Voir Dire During Trial on Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence
Outcome
The defendants' generic and specific objections to Mr Ryan's two evidentiary statements were rejected.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'basis Rule' 'ultimate Issue Evidence' 'rugby League Tackling and Coaching Methods']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'sports Law'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'basis Rule' 'ultimate Issue Evidence' 'rugby League Tackling and Coaching Methods']

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

Civil Personal Injury Proceeding Involving Alleged Rugby League Spear Tackle or Dangerous Throw / Voir Dire During Trial on Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Warren Ryan had specialised knowledge to give expert opinion evidence about rugby league coaching methods associated with tackling in an adult second division Country Rugby League competition.' "Whether parts of Mr Ryan's evidentiary statements were inadmissible because his expertise was said to be confined to elite professional rugby league rather than second division Country Rugby League." 'Whether the challenged opinions satisfied the requirement that the opinion be based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge.' 'Whether the conclusions about causation and intention were inadmissible under the basis rule or because they addressed ultimate issues.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ryan's long experience as a rugby league player, coach, commentator and analyst gave him specialised knowledge about tackling objectives and coaching methods in adult rugby league. Any differences between elite professional rugby league and second division Country Rugby League went to weight, not admissibility. The challenged opinions about tackling consequences, causation and intention were sufficiently based on stated assumptions, observations and specialised knowledge, and were not excluded by the basis rule or merely because they approached ultimate issues.

Court Disposition

The defendants' generic and specific objections to Mr Ryan's two evidentiary statements were rejected.

Orders

  • ["The generic and specific objections to Mr Ryan's two evidentiary statements are rejected." 'The evidence adduced in the voir dire is to be treated as if it was adduced in the trial.']