Kelly v Thorn; Monteleone v Thorn (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1936

Kelly v Thorn; Monteleone v Thorn (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1936

The application to adduce evidence from Mr Pulver is rejected because the proposed evidence is expert in nature, not evidence of custom and usage; its probative value is questionable; some aspects are not pleaded; and it is not for the witness to opine on legal responsibility.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application rejected
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance']
['evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to adduce oral evidence from Mr Pulver as expert or custom/usage evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adduce evidence from Mr Pulver is rejected because the proposed evidence is expert in nature, not evidence of custom and usage; its probative value is questionable; some aspects are not pleaded; and it is not for the witness to opine on legal responsibility.

Court Disposition

Application rejected

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application to adduce evidence from Mr Pulver is rejected."]