[2018] NSWSC 1373

Canon Finance Australia Limited v Reliance Medical Practice Pty Ltd & Ors

Reject the first sentence and third sentence of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit

Catchwords

EVIDENCE – admissibility of evidence – affidavit – expert evidence – opinion – exceptions – threshold not met

[1]
I am dealing with objections to the first affidavit of Mr Christopher Benson, affirmed on 19 October 2017. Mr Benson's evidence is put forward as expert evidence and contains the expression of many opinions which it is said fall within the exception to the opinion rule established by s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (“Evidence Act”). His area of expertise seems to be, from reading his affidavit, in the area of information technology installation and design.
[2]
The first objection is to para 14 of the affidavit, which is in the following terms:
[3]
I am of the view that this objection is well-founded. It does seem to me that the opinion is opaque in the sense that the factual basis for it is undisclosed. Moreover, nor does Mr Benson disclose the reasoning which he has employed in coming to those conclusions so that I may assess whether or not the opinions expressed are in fact wholly or substantially based upon his expertise for the purpose of s 79 of the Evidence Act.
[4]
There was also objection taken in relation to the relevance of those opinions. It seems that potentially the matter could be relevant to the averments contained in sub-paragraphs (e), (f) and (h) of paras 18, 19 and 20 of the current iteration of the cross-claim. I am satisfied that these opinions are potentially relevant to that matter, however, the thresholds for admissibility has not been crossed and I will reject the first sentence and third sentence of paragraph 14 of Mr Benson's affidavit.