Evidence · Expert opinion

Expert opinion evidence: Makita v Sprowles and s 79

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 is the most cited Australian statement of what an expert must show for their opinion to be admitted and given weight: specialised knowledge, an opinion based on it, and reasoning the court can follow.

Last updated 9 November 2026

In short

  • Section 79 of the uniform Evidence Act admits opinion based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge from training, study or experience.
  • The expert must identify the facts and assumptions relied on and expose the reasoning from them to the opinion.
  • In Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 the High Court required the opinion to be shown to be wholly or substantially based on the expert’s specialised knowledge.

The case

In Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 a plaintiff fell on stairs and relied on an expert’s evidence about slip resistance. Heydon JA set out the requirements for expert opinion under s 79 and held that the expert’s report did not adequately expose how the opinion was reached.

Read it in the case index: Makita v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305.

What the expert must show

  1. A field of specialised knowledge.
  2. That the witness has that knowledge through training, study or experience.
  3. That the opinion is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge.
  4. The facts and assumptions on which the opinion is based, and that those facts are proved or are to be proved.
  5. The reasoning by which the expert moves from those facts to the opinion.

Dasreef v Hawchar and Honeysett

In Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 the High Court held that the party tendering expert opinion must show that it is wholly or substantially based on the witness’s specialised knowledge. In Honeysett v The Queen [2014] HCA 29 the Court applied that requirement to identification evidence from an anatomist, holding the opinion inadmissible because it was not based on specialised knowledge.

Drafting and challenging expert reports

  • Brief the expert with the facts and assumptions to be relied on, and keep a record.
  • Check the report against the court’s expert witness code of conduct.
  • When objecting, identify which link in the chain is missing: the field, the expertise, the basis, or the reasoning.

Frequently asked questions

What is the basis rule for expert evidence?

The requirement that the facts on which an expert opinion is based are identified and proved. Whether a separate basis rule exists under the uniform Evidence Acts is unsettled. Courts often treat proof of the assumed facts as going to weight, but an opinion whose basis and reasoning are not exposed may not be shown to be based on specialised knowledge, and so may be inadmissible.

Does Makita v Sprowles still apply?

Yes. It remains widely cited, read together with the High Court’s decisions in Dasreef v Hawchar and Honeysett v The Queen.

Sources

General information, not legal advice. See our editorial policy for how this page is sourced and reviewed, and how to report an error.

Read the authorities, not a summary of a summary

Barrister AI links each principle to the judgments that apply it, with pinpoint citations you can check paragraph by paragraph.

Start free