NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Limited [2010] NSWSC 921

NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Limited [2010] NSWSC 921

Mr McDougall is responsible for the opinions expressed in both his report and that prepared by Ms Woollams. The collaboration and joint preparation do not undermine the genuineness or admissibility of his opinions. Any omission of references goes to weight, not admissibility. The defendants have had ample opportunity to cross-examine, and the evidentiary process was not compromised.

Parties
Plaintiff: NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Rimanui Farms Limited; Second Defendant: Gil Gil Farming Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Lloyds Syndicate No 1243
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome
Report admitted into evidence
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Compliance With Expert Witness Code of Conduct, Evidentiary Admissibility
Practice & Procedure Expert Evidence Compliance With Expert Witness Code of Conduct Evidentiary Admissibility

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Rimanui Farms Limited

First Defendant

Gil Gil Farming Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Lloyds Syndicate No 1243

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr McDougall's expert report should be admitted into evidence given alleged non-compliance with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Mr McDougall is responsible for the opinions expressed in both his report and that prepared by Ms Woollams. The collaboration and joint preparation do not undermine the genuineness or admissibility of his opinions. Any omission of references goes to weight, not admissibility. The defendants have had ample opportunity to cross-examine, and the evidentiary process was not compromised.

Court Disposition

Report admitted into evidence

Orders

  • The report of Mr McDougall dated 2 November 2005 should be admitted into evidence.