19 Jul 2022
CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1727
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 1727
- Court
- High Court
Passages in Hood's brief at [11] and [28]–[47] were admissible because Hood demonstrated specialised knowledge through extensive professional experience and roles (including standards committee membership), his scope limitation at [11] properly defined his role and did not unfairly invite speculation, and his evidence about how lawyers as a class would react to allegations was substantially helpful to a non-lawyer jury addressing reputation harm raised by the plaintiff's expert.