Azmin Firoz Daya v CX Reinsurance Company Limited

The case between Azmin Firoz Daya and CX Reinsurance Company Limited was before the court, where the plaintiff sought to establish a claim against the defendant for breach of a reinsurance agreement. The central dispute was whether the defendant had correctly calculated the amount of reinsurance premium payable under the terms of the contract, an issue that hinged on the interpretation and application of certain accounting standards. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's tendered opinion on these standards constituted admissible expert evidence.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the defendant's opinion on the interpretation and application of accounting standards qualified as expert evidence under the Evidence Act. The plaintiff objected to the opinion on the ground that it was not based on specialised knowledge. The court had to assess whether the interpretation of accounting standards constituted a specialised field of knowledge and whether the defendant could demonstrate the requisite qualifications, such as through study or experience, to provide expert evidence.

The court examined the nature of accounting standards and their interpretation, noting that while accounting practices are technical, the interpretation of such standards can involve subjective judgment. The court found that while some aspects of accounting interpretation might be considered specialised, the specific context of this case did not necessarily require expert evidence. The court held that the defendant's opinion did not meet the threshold for expert evidence under section 79 of the Evidence Act because it did not rely on specialised knowledge that was beyond the scope of common experience or understanding. Consequently, the court ruled that the opinion was inadmissible as expert evidence.

As a result of this ruling, the court disallowed the defendant's tendered opinion on the interpretation and application of accounting standards. The court directed the parties to proceed with the trial on the basis of the remaining admissible evidence. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the admissibility of expert evidence in this case.