Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited [2017] FCA 1104 File number: VID 1274 of 2016
Judge: MORTIMER J
Date of ruling: 15 September 2017
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – application of opinion rule – application of s 79 of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – admissibility of evidence of lay witness in reliance on s 79 of Evidence Act in circumstances where lay witness has not complied with, and has no capacity to comply with, Part 23 of Evidence Act – not admissible as expert evidence
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law, ss 18, 20, 21 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 66A, 76, 78, 79 Federal Court Rules 2011, r 23
Cases cited: Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tomar (No 4) [2012] FCA 385; 202 FCR 564 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; 244 CLR 352
Date of hearing: 14 September 2017
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 60
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Merkel QC, with Mr P Gray QC, Ms Z Maud and Mr C Tran
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr N Young QC with Mr N Hopkins QC and Ms G Coleman
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Minter Ellison
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