22 Aug 2013
AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2160
- Citation
- [2013] NZHC 2160
- Court
- High Court
The proposed evidence of Mr Timothy Jones is inadmissible under s25 Evidence Act 2006 because it does not provide the court with substantial help; it seeks to express a legal interpretation of the tenancy agreements and what solicitors would have advised in 1985, thereby intruding on the court's role to determine contract meaning objectively from the text and factual matrix, and is not the proper subject of expert opinion in this proceeding.