Matinca v Coalroc (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 1722

Matinca v Coalroc (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 1722

Dr Desai is qualified to offer an opinion based on his specialised knowledge and scientific expertise, and while his expression of probability is infelicitous, the evidence is admissible. The discretion to exclude the evidence under s 135 is not engaged because its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, risk of confusion, or waste of time.

Parties
Plaintiff: Troy Anthony Matinca; Defendant: Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
The impugned answer is admitted.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Discretion to Exclude Evidence
Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Discretion to Exclude 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Troy Anthony Matinca

Plaintiff

Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert's opinion is within the expert's specialised knowledge
  2. 2 Whether the opinion expressed is a mere ipse dixit
  3. 3 Whether to exclude or limit use of the expert evidence under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 135

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Desai is qualified to offer an opinion based on his specialised knowledge and scientific expertise, and while his expression of probability is infelicitous, the evidence is admissible. The discretion to exclude the evidence under s 135 is not engaged because its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, risk of confusion, or waste of time.

Court Disposition

The impugned answer is admitted.

Orders

  • The objection to paragraph 48 of Dr Desai's report is overruled.