Hearsay statements in expert reports recording facts upon which the expert's opinion is based are not, by reason of the report being tendered without objection, admissible as evidence of the truth of those facts. The principle in Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd does not extend to such statements because the inclusion of factual assumptions in expert reports is a prerequisite to the report's admissibility, not evidence tendered for its truth. Practitioners must prove the factual bases of expert opinions through admissible evidence and cannot rely on the expert's recitation of hearsay instructions as proof of those facts. Where a plaintiff fails to give direct evidence on a matter within their knowledge (such as what training they received), a strong adverse inference is available under Jones v Dunkel principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.