Mattock v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Department of Education) (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 477

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mattock v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Department of Education) (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 477 Hearing dates: 5 May 2021 Date of orders: 5 May 2021 Decision date: 06 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: . Catchwords: Admissibility of expert's report Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79 Cases Cited: Dasreef (2011) 277 ALR 611 Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zeeland Banking Group Ltd (No 5) (1996) 64 FCR 73 Risk v Northern Territory [2006] FCA 404 Texts Cited: Miiko Kumar, 'Admissibility of Expert Evidence: Proving the Basis for an Expert's Opinion' Sydney Law Review, VOL 33:427 2011 JD Heydon, Cross on Evidence (Butterworths, 7th ed, 2004) Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Daniel Francis Mattock (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (New South Wales Department of Education) (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Niel QC with R di Michiel (Plaintiff) M Fordham SC with S Love (Defendant)

Solicitors: Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff) McCabe Curwood (Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/190832 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: This judgment concerns the admissibility of an expert's report on liability. 2. The plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury arising out of a head clash he sustained while playing a hybrid/creative game during a physical education and sports studies (PASS) class. on 29 June 2012 at Eden Marine High School (the school). This hybrid/creative game is a unit in PE programme which involves mixing the skills and rules of different games such as AFL, soccer, NRL, touch football, rugby union or league into a new game. It enables students of different abilities to get involved and practice different skills. 3. The defendant objects to the whole report of Ken Armanasco dated XX February 2018 being tendered in evidence. The defendant submitted that Mr Armanasco is not qualified to give evidence about touch football or teaching, he is not qualified in first and his opinions are legal conclusions. 4. The plaintiff submitted that Mr Armanasco's expertise in the field of sport is of itself sufficient and, when this is considered in combination with his educational and risk management qualifications, this provides full qualification. 5. Section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) relevantly reads: "79 Exception - opinions based on specialised knowledge (1) If a person has specialised knowledge based on the person's training, study or experience, the opinion rule does not apply to evidence of an opinion of that person that is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. …"