Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tomar (No 4) [2012] FCA 385 Citation: Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tomar (No 4) [2012] FCA 385
Parties: ANANDA MARGA PRACARAKA SAMGHA LTD (ACN 003 193 897) & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) v SUNIL KUMAR SINGH TOMAR & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE); SUNIL KUMAR SINGH TOMAR & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE); ANANDA MARGA PRACARAKA SAMGHA LTD (ACN 003 193 879) & ORS (ACCORDING TO THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
File number: VID 208 of 2010
Judge: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 2 April 2012
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Objections to competence of proposed expert witnesses – Whether evidence relevant – Whether witnesses lacked specialised knowledge – Whether independence required
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 76, 79, 135
Cases cited: Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 cited FGT Custodians Pty Ltd (formerly Feingold Partners Pty Ltd) v Fagenblat [2003] VSCA 33 followed Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 cited Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 cited Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited (in liquidation) v Selim [2008] FCA 416 discussed R v Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766 cited SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman (2003) 131 FCR 500 cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate