Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 5) [2018] FCA 1622 File number: NSD 2179 of 2017
Judge: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 29 October 2018
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – expert opinion evidence – application that expert opinion evidence be ruled inadmissible – application for an order that evidence be excluded pursuant to s 135 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – where claimed that expert witnesses not capable of being independent or impartial – where evidence otherwise admissible pursuant to s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether independence is a precondition of competence for an expert witness – whether Expert Witness Practice Note and Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct are mere "admonitions", "precepts or ideals", rather than legal requirements – where no demonstrated non-compliance with Part 23 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) or the Expert Witness Practice Note or the Code – where evidence not unfairly prejudicial – applications refused
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 76, 79, 135 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 23.11, 23.13
Cases cited: Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samagha Ltd v Tomar (No 4) (2012) 202 FCR 564; [2012] FCA 385 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 190 FLR 242; [2005] NSWSC 149 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 218 ALR 764; [2005] NSWCA 152 FGT Custodians Pty Ltd (formerly Feingold Partners Pty Ltd) v Fagenblat [2003] VSCA 33 Fortson Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2008) 100 SASR 162; [2008] SASC 49 Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited [2017] FCA 1104 Lake Macquarie City Council v Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 92 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer) [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 68 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 550 SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman (2003) 131 FCR 500 Sydney South West Area Health Service v Stamoulis [2009] NSWCA 153
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