Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Evidential Ruling) [2022] FCA 1318 File number: NSD 806 of 2020
Ruling of: STEWART J
Date of ruling: 3 November 2022
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – objection to tender of scientific journal articles – where category one articles were put to an expert witness in cross-examination – where category two articles not the subject of any expert evidence – whether articles admissible and, if so, whether subject to limitation
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 59, 60, 69, 76, 77, 79, 135, 136, 174 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Div 23.2 Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN-EXPT)
Cases cited: ACCC v Air New Zealand Limited (No 5) [2012] FCA 1479; 301 ALR 352 Bodney v Bennell [2008] FCAFC 63; 167 FCR 84 Borowski v Quayle [1966] VR 382 Commissioner for Government Transport v Adamcik [1961] HCA 43; 106 CLR 292 Concha v Murrieta (1889) 40 Ch D 543 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; 243 CLR 588 PQ v Australian Red Cross Society [1992] 1 VR 19 QIW Retailers Ltd & Attorney-General (Cth) v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [1993] FCA 288; 42 FCR 255 R v Karger [2001] SASC 64; 83 SASR 1 R v Patel (No 6) [2013] QSC 64 Roach v Page (No 15) [2003] NSWSC 939 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 8) [2005] FCA 1348; 224 ALR 317
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