Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2008] NSWDC 205

Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2008] NSWDC 205

There is no real risk that the expert's opinion was improperly influenced by having not specifically referenced the code at the time of the initial report preparation, as the expert demonstrated longstanding objectivity, acknowledged the code, and did not show undue alignment or prejudice; thus, the objections to the admissibility of the expert report under s135 Evidence Act 1995 and r31.23 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 are rejected.

Parties
Plaintiff: Suttram Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Michelin Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Objection to Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome
Objections rejected
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R31.23, Evidence Act S135, Expert Witness Code of Conduct
Negligence Contract Admissibility of Expert Evidence Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R31.23 Evidence Act S135 Expert Witness Code of Conduct

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suttram Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Michelin Australia Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Objection to Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the report of an expert witness should be admitted given alleged non-compliance with r31.23 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
  2. 2 Whether retrospective acknowledgment of expert code of conduct satisfies admissibility requirements
  3. 3 Whether there is a risk of misleading or confusing evidence under s135 Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real risk that the expert's opinion was improperly influenced by having not specifically referenced the code at the time of the initial report preparation, as the expert demonstrated longstanding objectivity, acknowledged the code, and did not show undue alignment or prejudice; thus, the objections to the admissibility of the expert report under s135 Evidence Act 1995 and r31.23 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 are rejected.

Court Disposition

Objections rejected

Orders

  • Objection to admission of report dated 12 March 2002 rejected
  • Objection to balance of reports in exhibit VDH rejected