Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWDC 429

Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWDC 429

It would be unfairly prejudicial to the second defendant for exhibit Y to be treated as evidence of the facts asserted because the form in which information was provided to the expert was happenstance, the facts are contentious and in dispute, and the case does not present the same exigencies as in other authorities; thus, the use of exhibit Y is limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act to evidence of facts upon which the expert expressed his opinion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
['application of S 136 Evidence Act' 'hearsay Rule' 'expert Evidence' 'prejudicial Evidence']
['evidence'] ['application of S 136 Evidence Act' 'hearsay Rule' 'expert Evidence' 'prejudicial 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the use of exhibit Y (statement by Mr Weatherburn) should be limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act' 'Whether admitting exhibit Y as evidence of facts constitutes unfair prejudice to the second defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

It would be unfairly prejudicial to the second defendant for exhibit Y to be treated as evidence of the facts asserted because the form in which information was provided to the expert was happenstance, the facts are contentious and in dispute, and the case does not present the same exigencies as in other authorities; thus, the use of exhibit Y is limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act to evidence of facts upon which the expert expressed his opinion.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • ['The use of exhibit Y is limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act to evidence of the facts upon which expert Henry Herzog expressed his opinion.']