Allstate Life Insurance Co & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors (no 32) [1996] FCA 256

Evidence from a witness as to what they would have done had there been disclosure (in a non-disclosure case) is not inadmissible opinion evidence under s 76 Evidence Act 1995; it is admissible as the most direct available evidence of reliance or inducement, and is not within the mischief of the opinion rule.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 22 March 1996
Procedural Posture: Ruling on Evidence / Interlocutory Objection (ruling on Admissibility of Evidence)
Outcome: General objection to the admissibility of paragraph 27 of Mr Ericson's statement (excluding objections to the last three sentences) is dismissed.
Legal Topics: ['opinion Evidence' 'reliance' 'non Disclosure' 'admissibility of Hypothetical Statements' 'evidence Act 1995']

['evidence'] ['opinion Evidence' 'reliance' 'non Disclosure' 'admissibility of Hypothetical Statements' 'evidence Act 1995']

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

Procedural Posture

Ruling on Evidence / Interlocutory Objection (ruling on Admissibility of Evidence)

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether evidence from a witness as to how they would have acted if there had been disclosure is inadmissible as opinion evidence under s 76 Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether such evidence is admissible to prove reliance/inducement when based on hypothetical scenarios']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

General objection to the admissibility of paragraph 27 of Mr Ericson's statement (excluding objections to the last three sentences) is dismissed.

Orders

['Paragraph 27 is admitted into evidence, subject to rulings on the last three sentences.']