Gabrielsen v Crown Security CC (1) (563 of 2007) [2010] NAHC 185 (22 October 2010)

Gabrielsen v Crown Security CC (1) (563 of 2007) [2010] NAHC 185 (22 October 2010)

Sufficient reason existed to allow the plaintiff's expert evidence to be tendered by affidavit because the defendant had not appointed any expert to challenge the plaintiff's expert, the cost of requiring all experts to attend court would be unnecessarily high, and the matters addressed by the expert were largely common cause or could be adequately tested through written questions. The defendant did not reasonably require the expert's attendance for cross-examination.

Citation
[2010] NAHC 185
Parties
Plaintiff: Johan Gabrielsen; Defendant: Crown Security CC
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Case Number
563 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (damages for Personal Injury) / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence by Affidavit
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Affidavit Evidence, Personal Injury, Damages, Rule 38(2) High Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Expert Evidence Affidavit Evidence Personal Injury Damages Rule 38(2) High Court Rules

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Gabrielsen

Plaintiff

Crown Security CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (damages for Personal Injury) / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence by Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient reason exists to allow expert evidence to be tendered by affidavit under Rule 38(2)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant reasonably requires the attendance of the expert for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

Sufficient reason existed to allow the plaintiff's expert evidence to be tendered by affidavit because the defendant had not appointed any expert to challenge the plaintiff's expert, the cost of requiring all experts to attend court would be unnecessarily high, and the matters addressed by the expert were largely common cause or could be adequately tested through written questions. The defendant did not reasonably require the expert's attendance for cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The evidence of the plaintiff’s expert witness Dr Kevin D Rosman shall be given on affidavit as contemplated in Rule 38(2).
  • The contents of the summary of expert evidence and reasons already filed shall be incorporated in the affidavit.