Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 231

Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 231

Mr Herzog has demonstrated sufficient specialised knowledge in the area of tyres and tyre failure, based primarily on his experience and supported by his academic background. The opinions in his reports are admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act as they are substantially based on that specialised knowledge, and there is no sufficient basis for exclusion under s 135.

Parties
Plaintiff: Suttram Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Michelin Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Opinion rule does not apply. Expert reports admitted.
Legal Topics
Opinion Rule, Expert Evidence, Specialised Knowledge, Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence Law Opinion Rule Expert Evidence Specialised Knowledge Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suttram Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Michelin Australia Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reports by expert Mr Herzog are admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act as an exception to the opinion rule
  2. 2 Whether the reports should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act due to probative value being outweighed by danger of prejudice, misleading, confusion or waste of time

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Herzog has demonstrated sufficient specialised knowledge in the area of tyres and tyre failure, based primarily on his experience and supported by his academic background. The opinions in his reports are admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act as they are substantially based on that specialised knowledge, and there is no sufficient basis for exclusion under s 135.

Court Disposition

Opinion rule does not apply. Expert reports admitted.

Orders

  • The opinions expressed by Mr Herzog in his reports are admitted into evidence.
  • Refusal to exclude under s 135 of the Evidence Act.