NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd [1999] FCA 252

NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd [1999] FCA 252

The evidence fails to show that the witness has specialised knowledge of an identifiable kind, which is required for admissibility under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Moreover, the opinions expressed largely intrude upon the exclusive function of the Court; with only limited leave reserved for potential...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Admissibility
Outcome
Objection upheld; opinion evidence ruled inadmissible, with limited leave to retender certain opinions upon proof of qualification under s 79.
Legal Topics
['opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'expert Qualification' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'exclusive Function of the Court']
['evidence' 'practice and Procedure'] ['opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'expert Qualification' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'exclusive Function of the Court']

Source-derived case record

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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the witness has 'specialised knowledge' within s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)" 'Whether opinions expressed by the witness are admissible or intrude upon the exclusive function of the Court']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence fails to show that the witness has specialised knowledge of an identifiable kind, which is required for admissibility under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Moreover, the opinions expressed largely intrude upon the exclusive function of the Court; with only limited leave reserved for potential opinion evidence if proper qualification is shown.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; opinion evidence ruled inadmissible, with limited leave to retender certain opinions upon proof of qualification under s 79.

Orders

  • ['The two affidavits of Mr Hargraves, sought to be read, are rejected.' 'Leave reserved to Citibank to re-tender opinions relating to subquestions (a)(iii)-(v) and questions (e), (g), (h) if evidence of qualification satisfying s 79 is provided.']