Dasreef Pty Ltd V Hawchar Essay

1137 words - 5 pages

Introduction
The High Court’s decision in Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 has been significant as the threshold requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are clarified (French 2012). This essay will first discuss the facts of the case, followed by the technical requirements and perceived difficulties related to expert evidence identified by the court in this case.
Facts
Mr Hawchar, the respondent claimed damages from his employer, Dasreef Pty Ltd, the appellant as he was diagnosed with silicosis allegedly caused by the unsafe working environment. An expert, Dr Basden was retained to provide a report centering on the foreseeability of the alleged injury claimed by Mr ...view middle of the document...

In this case, Dr Basden’s opinion was relevant to proving whether or not there were adequate safety measures in the working environment of Dasreef. However, it was used to quantify the numerical exposure in which the estimates provided in the opinion was not based on Dr Basden’s specialized knowledge based on his training, study or experience, as required by s79(1). The majority found that ‘the form of his opinion did not connect the estimate with his relevant specialized knowledge’ and hence not admissible on this basis (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at paragraph 34).
Criteria governing s79(1) of Evidence Act
The majority also identified two criteria that must be satisfied under s79(1) for the evidence to be admissible, these include:
i. The expert has specialized knowledge based on his or her training, study or experience.
ii. The opinion evidence is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge.
The first criterion was addressed in paragraph 37 of the case. By referring to the judgment in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305, in order for the opinion to be admissible, there must be an explanation as to ‘how the relevant field of specialized knowledge applies to the assumed or observed facts to produce the expert’s opinion’ (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at paragraph 37). The second criterion is related to the relevance requirement mentioned earlier, where it is necessary for the expert to demonstrate the connection between his or her expertise and the opinion provided. In other words, the opinion needs to be presented in a way that can explain that it is based on training, study or experience (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at paragraph 36).
The common law requirements
Justice Heydon identified three common law requirements in relation to the admissibility of expert evidence in this case, these include:
i. The facts and assumptions which the opinion is based must be identified (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at paragraph 64).
ii. The facts and assumptions identified must be proved with admissible evidence (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at paragraph 66).
iii. The reasoning process applied by the expert in reaching the conclusion which flows from the facts or assumptions identified and proved (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at paragraph 91).
The first and third...

Other Papers Like Dasreef Pty Ltd V Hawchar

Partnership Act Essay

1208 words - 5 pages . | | | |- United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd | | | |Partnership Act itself provides for partnership for single undertaking (s.32b) in relation to

Environinvest Ltd Case Study

2811 words - 12 pages the defendants upon the alleged activities they had done towards abusing their power as former directors of Environinvest Limited. Referencing Environinvest Ltd v Pescott & Ors (No.2); Environinvest Ltd v Blackburne Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) [2012] VSC 151 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Lonie, J 2009, The Interesting Curse of Environinvest, Financial Services Newsletter, viewed 28 May 2014,<http://www.hdy.com.au/Media/docs/The

Bill of Rights

2594 words - 11 pages ]) Pita v. Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 362 [1989]) U.S. v. Bustos (37 PHIL. 731 [1918]) Ayer Productions PTY Ltd. v. Capulong (160 SCRA 861 [1988]) Lopez v. Court of Appeals (34 SCRA 116 [1970]) Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan (170 SCRA 1 [1989]) Reyes v. Bagatsing (125 SCRA 553 [1983]) Eastern Broadcasting Corp. v. Danas, Jr. (137 SCRA 628 [1985]) DAVID, et. al. vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et. al., G.R. No. 171396. May 3, 2006 BAYAN

Accounting

1281 words - 6 pages purposes. Raising capital in this case is a proper purpose, since it is to enter into a joint venture with its new subsidiary. (Harlowe’s Nominees Pty Ltd v Woodside(Lakes Entrance) Oil Co NL). Within one month after a new share is made, the company must notify ASIC of the details of the issue in accordance with s254X. Improper purpose: cite case Diluting the shareholding of a member (Kokotovich Construction Pty Ltd v Wallington) Entrenching

Business Law

3883 words - 16 pages and have the power to sue or be sued in its own name. A company is distinct from its director, shareholders, employees and creditors as recognised by the court in the case of Salomon v. A. Salomon Co Pty Ltd [1897] AC 22. The basic principle of corporate law regard an incorporated company as a separate legal entity for the purposes of legal analysis, separated from people who established them, who invest money in it, and who direct and manage its

Contract Law Problem Answer

3312 words - 14 pages abolished.BibliographyBooksDuke, A, Paterson, J and Robertson, A, Principles of Contract Law (Thomson Reuters, 3rd ed, 2009)CasesAdams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & A 681Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl Und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562Felthouse v Bindley (1862

Assignment

2496 words - 10 pages : Weighted flotation costs (fA) = (0.15)(1/4) + (0.01)(3/4) = 0.045 (4.5%) Total project costs = $20,000,000/(1 – 0.045) = $20,942,408 PV of project cash flows = $8,000,000/0.082 = $97,560,976 NPV = $97,560,976 - $20,942,408 = $76,618,567 Thus Mark Models Company Ltd should undertake the expansion project as it has a positive NPV. 4. EOCQ 5) Here Pty Ltd and Now Pty Ltd are identical firms in every way except for capital structure (Now

Business Law

3064 words - 13 pages in the original advertisement, that K will be A's only customer. In order to determine this issue it would be necessary to examine the wording of the contract more closely. In any event nothing in relation to A's alleged liability for the accident turns on this point. 18 Cf Edwards v Skyways (1964) 1 WLR 349 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 16 ALR 363; The Moorcock (1899) 14 PD 64 20 L’Estrange v Gracoub

Unsw Legt1710 Week 5 Tutorial

1510 words - 7 pages examples of Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552, Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463, Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523. We will first examine whether Roger has a contract to sell the printer to Andy. On 1 May, the first statement made by Roger on the lowest price he will consider for selling the printer is $1000 was not an offer but merely a statement of the price; therefore there is no contract between Roger

The Turquand Rule in Law

947 words - 4 pages extension to the Turquand rule, however, that is another topic in itself. Bibliography HS Cilliers et al Entrepreneurial Law 2ed (2001) Butterworths: Durban. -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E&B 327 [ 2 ]. 42 [ 3 ]. 41; Act No. 71 of 2008 [ 4 ]. 42 [ 5 ]. Wolpert v Uitzigt Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others [1961] 1 All SA 16 (W) [ 6 ]. HS Cilliers et al Entrepreneurial Law 2ed (2001) 168 [ 7 ]. Wolpert v Uitzigt Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others [1961] 1 All SA 16 (W) [ 8 ]. 42 [ 9 ]. HS Cilliers et al Entrepreneurial Law 2ed (2001) 168 [ 10 ]. Burstein v Yale [1958] 1 SA 288 (W)

How to Manage for Dummies

2387 words - 10 pages you name your file using the format indicated under the Declaration on page 1 of the template. Your filename should look something like this: ClassCode-Q#-YourGroupNumber-YourStudentID.docx Fonts: You should use only Arial or Helvetica fonts. © Snowballing Ideas Pty Ltd Corporate Finance 2 If your question asks you to submit a spreadsheet then you will need to embed the spreadsheet as an object at the end of your Microsoft Word document

Related Essays

Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd V Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957)

1444 words - 6 pages Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957) PART I Summary of Facts The dispute occurred in Victoria between a registered company, Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd ("the plaintiff") and an incorporated company, Nathan's Merchandise Pty Ltd. ("the defendant), where both parties operated their business. Two previous binding contracts (orders No. 58 and No. M57) were made in communications on 14th May 1951 and 2nd August 1951

Trio Capital Limited (Admin App) V Act Superannuation Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] Nswsc 286

4731 words - 19 pages NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT CITATION: Trio Capital Limited (Admin App) v ACT Superannuation Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] NSWSC 286 JURISDICTION: Equity Division Corporations List FILE NUMBER(S): 2010/011359 HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2010 JUDGMENT DATE: 16 April 2010 PARTIES: Stephen James Parbery, Neil Singleton & Nicholas Martin in their capacity as Joint and Several Administrators of Trio Capital Limited

Legt2741 Assignment

1734 words - 7 pages if he is able to prove that there is an agency relationship between the two entities will not being enough. Bibliography ACN 007 528 207 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Bird Cameron [2005] SASC 204 BHP Billiton Finance Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 72 ATR 746 (Gordon J) Hargovan, A. (with Harris, J.) (2010) 32 ‘Corporate Groups: The Intersection between Corporate and Tax Law’ Sydney University Law Review 723 Harris, J “Lifting the Corporate

Business Law Essay

4546 words - 19 pages given * Credit Corporation Australian Pty Ltd v Atkins – debt incurred when the goods are delivered * S588F – certain pyts to the commissioner of taxation to be a debt for the purpose of s588G * S 95A – defines insolvency * S 588E --S588E(3) – the coy incurred a number of debts during the 12 months prior to its winding up and each time a debt was incurred, the coy was insolvent . -- S588E(4) – coy is presumed to have