Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 5)

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 5) involved disputes concerning the admissibility of certain evidence in the context of non-disclosure and reliance claims. The court was required to decide whether evidence of what a person would have done if a particular disclosure had been made constitutes "opinion evidence" and if it is admissible under the "opinion rule" in s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995. The respondents argued that such evidence was inadmissible under the opinion rule, while the applicants contended that it was direct evidence of reliance and inducement.

The court determined that evidence of what a person would have done in a hypothetical situation is not "opinion evidence" of the kind against which the general rule is directed. The court reasoned that such evidence belongs to a different area of discourse and is the most direct evidence available to prove reliance and inducement. The court cited several cases, including Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd and Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Ltd, which support the admissibility of such evidence. The court held that if the evidence is not tendered to prove the existence of a fact about which the opinion was expressed, the opinion rule does not apply. Consequently, the court allowed the evidence in question, subject to separate rulings on specific objections regarding the last three sentences of the paragraph.

The final orders of the court allowed the evidence in question, subject to the separate rulings on the specific objections to the last three sentences of the paragraph.