MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Limited and Anor v Port Stephens Council (No. 3) [2010] NSWSC 243

MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Limited and Anor v Port Stephens Council (No. 3) [2010] NSWSC 243

The objection based on lack of objectivity in Mr Warnes’ expert opinion evidence goes to the weight rather than admissibility per principles stated in Stamoulis; the question asked involved both factual and opinion evidence relevant to the proceedings; the evidence is not excluded under s.135 Evidence Act 1995 as its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other dangers; accordingly, the objection is overruled.

Parties
First Plaintiff: MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Milan Maruncic; Defendant: Port Stephens Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
Objection overruled
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence, Planning Decisions, Voir Dire, Expert Witness Objectivity
Evidence Torts Local Government Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Misfeasance in Public Office Negligence Planning Decisions Voir Dire +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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Milan Maruncic

Second Plaintiff

Port Stephens Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether town planner retained by Plaintiffs can provide admissible expert opinion evidence despite alleged lack of independence/objectivity
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence should be excluded under s.135 Evidence Act 1995 due to unfair prejudice, misleading/confusing potential, or waste of time
  3. 3 Compliance with expert report rules (r.31.28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005)

Ratio Decidendi

The objection based on lack of objectivity in Mr Warnes’ expert opinion evidence goes to the weight rather than admissibility per principles stated in Stamoulis; the question asked involved both factual and opinion evidence relevant to the proceedings; the evidence is not excluded under s.135 Evidence Act 1995 as its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other dangers; accordingly, the objection is overruled.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled

Orders

  • The objection to the question at T188.39-40 is overruled.
  • Further directions to be given regarding admission of voir dire evidence and requirements for future expert evidence.