Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Parkin v Boral Limited (Materiality Evidence Ruling) [2025] FCA 70 File numbers: NSD 602 of 2020 NSD 935 of 2020
Judgment of: LEE J
Date of judgment: 5 February 2025
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – where an objection was made to expert evidence – where the issue of "materiality" considered – where the utility of expert evidence considered – where the ultimate issue was one of weight – where prejudice identified could be ameliorated by appropriate rulings and the adoption of pragmatic measures – where factors under s 192 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) considered more generally – where the relevant evidence determined sufficiently relevant to be placed before the court REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – general problem of spiralling costs of expert evidence in class actions
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 674(2)(c)(ii), 677 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 135, 136, 190(1)(c), 192
Cases cited: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2024] FCAFC 128; (2024) 305 FCR 383 McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Initial Trial) [2024] FCA 807 Parkin v Boral Limited (Loss of Privilege Issue) [2024] FCA 1039
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