Hatziandoniou v Ruddy

(2015) 72 MVR 171; [2015] NSWCA 234

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Opinion evidence
3. › Expert opinion
4. › Specialised knowledge
5. › Training, study or experience
6. › Whether expertise in fluid mechanics and motor vehicle cooling systems sufficient to opine on motorcycle cooling system behaviour
7. › Whether trial judge adopted unduly narrow approach to qualifications
8. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79(1)
1. Appeal
2. › Personal injury
3. › Motor vehicle accident
4. › New trial ordered
5. › Wrongful exclusion of expert evidence
6. › Whether exclusion affected outcome
1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Future economic loss
4. › Impairment of earning capacity
5. › Buffer or cushion approach
6. › Whether buffer of $30,000 appropriate where plaintiff absent from engineering workforce for 15 years
7. › Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 126

Quick Take

An expert witness need not have tested or studied the precise subject matter of their opinion to satisfy s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); training in the general field (e.g., fluid mechanics) is sufficient to support opinions about a specific application (e.g., fluid discharge from a motorcycle engine) because expertise enables extrapolation from the general to the particular. A trial judge who requires specific testing of the precise subject matter adopts an unduly narrow approach to expert qualifications.