Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 160

Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 160

Mr Herzog's inadequate answers about publications did not provide a sufficient basis to strike out his evidence because his engineering qualifications and experience with tyres and rubbers remained significant bases for his opinions, and any lack of connection with academic writings went to weight to be addressed later. The application under s 136 was also refused because the evidence about aquaplaning arose from open-ended cross-examination exploring the witness' explanations for the accident.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Law / Applications to Strike Out Expert Opinion Evidence or Alternatively Limit Its Use Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Application to strike out expert evidence refused; application under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 refused.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'strike Out Evidence' 'limitation of Use of Evidence Under S 136 Evidence Act 1995']
['civil Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'strike Out Evidence' 'limitation of Use of Evidence Under S 136 Evidence Act 1995']

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 Law / Applications to Strike Out Expert Opinion Evidence or Alternatively Limit Its Use Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether substantial parts of the expert evidence of Mr Herzog should be struck out on the basis that his qualifications to offer opinions had effectively fallen away under cross-examination.' "Whether the use of Mr Herzog's evidence should be limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995, particularly as to evidence about aquaplaning as a possible cause of the accident."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Herzog's inadequate answers about publications did not provide a sufficient basis to strike out his evidence because his engineering qualifications and experience with tyres and rubbers remained significant bases for his opinions, and any lack of connection with academic writings went to weight to be addressed later. The application under s 136 was also refused because the evidence about aquaplaning arose from open-ended cross-examination exploring the witness' explanations for the accident.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out expert evidence refused; application under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 refused.

Orders

  • ['Application under s 136 of Evidence Act 1995 refused.']