ARTICLE
26 September 2012

Admissibility of expert reports: Instructions matter

K
KordaMentha

Contributor

KordaMentha, an independent firm in Asia-Pacific, specializes in cybersecurity, financial crime, forensic, performance improvement, real estate, and restructuring services. With a diverse team of almost 400 specialists, they provide customised solutions to help clients grow, protect from financial loss, and recover value. Trusted since 2002, they deliver bold, impactful solutions for clients.
The article discusses one of the issues raised in the proceedings which concerned the admissibility of expert reports.
Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor,. Supreme Court of NSW (NO 6) [2012] NSWSC 160

Background

The plaintiffs in these proceedings were seeking to be appointed as trustees of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust of which one of the defendants is currently the Trustee. The defendants opposed the application.

The first defendant filed a motion seeking a non-publication order in respect of any pleading, evidence or argument, filed on the grounds that such order was necessary "to protect the safety of any person". Prior to this decision a temporary suppression order was in place.

The defendants relied on three expert reports prepared by persons claiming to be experts in the field of personal safety and security to support their argument. One of the issues raised in the proceedings concerned the admissibility of these reports.

Download PDF

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More