Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited [2017] FCA 1104

Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited [2017] FCA 1104

Parts of Dr Livingstone's affidavit constituting direct evidence from his own knowledge are admissible, but his opinion evidence is inadmissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act due to wholesale non-compliance with Part 23 of the Federal Court Rules, including the requirement for independence and procedural requirements for expert evidence; compliance or substantial capacity to comply with Part 23 is a precondition to admissibility of expert opinion evidence in this Court.

Parties
Applicant: Shonica Guy; First Respondent: Crown Melbourne Limited (ACN 006 973 262); Second Respondent: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 001 660 715)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Evidence Admissibility in Consumer Law Proceeding / Interlocutory – Ruling on Objections to Affidavit Evidence Before Trial
Outcome
Objections to Dr Livingstone's affidavit upheld in part and disallowed in part; some evidence admitted, opinion evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Opinion Rule, Expert Independence, Practice and Procedure
Evidence Law Consumer Protection Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Opinion Rule Expert Independence Practice and Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shonica Guy

Applicant

Crown Melbourne Limited (ACN 006 973 262)

First Respondent

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 001 660 715)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ruling on Evidence Admissibility in Consumer Law Proceeding / Interlocutory – Ruling on Objections to Affidavit Evidence Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Livingstone's affidavit constitutes admissible direct or opinion evidence
  2. 2 Whether opinion evidence can be admitted under s 78 or s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) given non-compliance with Part 23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
  3. 3 Whether compliance or substantial compliance with Part 23 and the Expert Witness Practice Note is a precondition to admissibility under s 79

Ratio Decidendi

Parts of Dr Livingstone's affidavit constituting direct evidence from his own knowledge are admissible, but his opinion evidence is inadmissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act due to wholesale non-compliance with Part 23 of the Federal Court Rules, including the requirement for independence and procedural requirements for expert evidence; compliance or substantial capacity to comply with Part 23 is a precondition to admissibility of expert opinion evidence in this Court.

Court Disposition

Objections to Dr Livingstone's affidavit upheld in part and disallowed in part; some evidence admitted, opinion evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1-17, 19, 20, 21, 22-24, 26-27, 28-32, 38-39, 42-44 of Dr Livingstone's affidavit admitted; opinion evidence in relevant remaining paragraphs excluded.