Idoport Pty Limited & Anor v National Australia Bank Limited & 8 Ors.; Idoport Pty Limited & Market Holdings Pty Limited v Donald Robert Argus; Idoport "JMG" v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors. [44] [2001] NSWSC 960

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Idoport Pty Limited & Anor v National Australia Bank Limited & 8 Ors.; Idoport Pty Limited & Market Holdings Pty Limited v Donald Robert Argus; Idoport "JMG" v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors. [44] [2001] NSWSC 960 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50113/98; 50026/99; 3991/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 25/10/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 October 2001

Idoport Pty Limited (Plaintiff) PARTIES : National Australia Bank Limited (Defendant) Donald Robert Argus (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J

COUNSEL : Mr R Alkadamani (Plaintiffs) Mr J Halley (Defendants) SOLICITORS : Withnell Hetherington (Plaintiffs) Freehills (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : Evidence - Objections as to admissibility LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 DECISION : Rulings given.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION – COMMERCIAL LIST

Einstein J

29 October 2001

50113/98 Idoport Pty Limited & Anor v National Australia Bank Limited and 8 Ors

50026/99 Idoport Pty Limited & Market Holdings Pty Limited v Donald Robert Argus

3991/00 Idoport Pty Limited "JMG" v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors. Judgment on objections to Statement of Stephen Coleman of 13 March 2001 1 The defendants have taken a number of objections to the statement of Mr Stephen Coleman dated 13 March 2001. Mr Coleman is put forward by the plaintiffs as a person having, by his training study or experience, been shown to have acquired specialised knowledge within the meaning of section 79 of the Evidence Act so as to be capable of expressing opinions of an expert nature based wholly or substantially on that specialised knowledge. As I understand the position, the defendants accept that Mr Coleman satisfies the section 79 criteria in principle but rely upon suggested lack of transparency of reasoning processes and suggested bare assertions for the purpose of pressing the subject objections. Other bases for the objections are to be found in MFI D 233 in the template prepared to identify both the defendants' objections and suggested rulings and the plaintiffs suggested rulings. 2 Mr Coleman is presently proposed to be cross-examined from the commencement of term next year. Hence the importance of the parties being given as clear an indication as possible as to the rulings on the subject objections. Clearly where rulings can be given they should be given so that as appropriate, if a 'reserve/leave' ruling is given, Mr Coleman may be given an appropriate opportunity to supplement the statement in an attempt to overcome admissibility problems. 3 The rulings are as follows: