Stephen Finlay McMartin v Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Limited & others [2003] NSWIRComm 470

Stephen Finlay McMartin v Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Limited & others [2003] NSWIRComm 470

Expert evidence from Inspector Buggy is admissible only insofar as it expresses general principles of risk management and risk assessment and to the extent he relies on authoritative publications within his expertise. His opinions concerning specific application to the mining industry or certain factual matters beyond his expertise are inadmissible. Australian Standards and similar materials are admissible as part of his general opinion evidence, not as binding standards for negligence, and only to the extent endorsed by the expert.

Parties
Prosecutor: Stephen Finlay McMartin; Defendant: Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Limited; Defendant: Oakbridge Pty Limited; Defendant: Richard Porteous; Defendant: Phillip Pritchard; Defendant: Michael Alston; Defendant: Mark Robinson; Defendant: Jonathan Romcke; Defendant: Michael Coffey; Defendant: Christopher Nicholls; Defendant: Terence Shacklady
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Partial admissibility ruling on expert evidence
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Risk Assessment, Risk Management, Use of Authoritative Publications, Australian Standards, Evidentiary Value of Industry Standards
Occupational Health and Safety Industrial Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Risk Assessment Risk Management Use of Authoritative Publications Australian Standards +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Finlay McMartin

Prosecutor

Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Limited

Defendant

Oakbridge Pty Limited

Defendant

Richard Porteous

Defendant

Phillip Pritchard

Defendant

Michael Alston

Defendant

Mark Robinson

Defendant

Jonathan Romcke

Defendant

Michael Coffey

Defendant

Christopher Nicholls

Defendant

Terence Shacklady

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the expert evidence of Inspector Buggy concerning risk assessment and risk management generally and in the mining industry admissible?
  2. 2 Are Australian Standards and other authoritative publications admissible as part of the expert's testimony and for what purpose?
  3. 3 What portions of the expert statement are inadmissible due to lack of specialised knowledge or speculation?

Ratio Decidendi

Expert evidence from Inspector Buggy is admissible only insofar as it expresses general principles of risk management and risk assessment and to the extent he relies on authoritative publications within his expertise. His opinions concerning specific application to the mining industry or certain factual matters beyond his expertise are inadmissible. Australian Standards and similar materials are admissible as part of his general opinion evidence, not as binding standards for negligence, and only to the extent endorsed by the expert.

Court Disposition

Partial admissibility ruling on expert evidence

Orders

  • Specified portions of Inspector Buggy's expert statement deleted as set out in judgment (pages and paragraphs identified)
  • Australian Standards and cited publications admitted as evidence only to the extent relied upon in expressing general principles of risk management and risk assessment and not as binding standards of care for mining industry-specific circumstances