Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 440

Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 440

The documents were not admitted because the probative value of the evidence, being solely for the purpose of raising a Jones v Dunkel inference in circumstances where multiple plausible explanations existed for not calling the expert, was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing or misleading the court.

Parties
Plaintiff: Suttram Pty Limited; 2nd Defendant: Michelin Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling on Tender of Documents
Outcome
Tender of MFI 17(1) and MFI 17(2) rejected; evidence not admitted.
Legal Topics
Relevance of Evidence, Expert Witness Correspondence, Jones V Dunkel Inference
Civil Procedure Evidence Relevance of Evidence Expert Witness Correspondence Jones V Dunkel Inference

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

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling on Tender of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether correspondence relating to retaining an expert witness is relevant and admissible solely for the purpose of inviting a Jones v Dunkel inference
  2. 2 Whether a Jones v Dunkel inference may be drawn where a party elects not to call a potential expert witness

Ratio Decidendi

The documents were not admitted because the probative value of the evidence, being solely for the purpose of raising a Jones v Dunkel inference in circumstances where multiple plausible explanations existed for not calling the expert, was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing or misleading the court.

Court Disposition

Tender of MFI 17(1) and MFI 17(2) rejected; evidence not admitted.

Orders

  • I reject the tender.