Coady v Yachting Victoria Inc

In *Coady v Yachting Victoria Inc*, the applicant, Ms Coady, alleged that she was excluded from participating in an Olympic sailing event on the basis of her gender, contrary to the *Sex Discrimination Act 1984* (Cth). The respondent, Yachting Victoria Inc, contended that the exclusion was permissible under a sporting exception. The matter came before Judge Mercuri.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's evidence, specifically affidavits from Ms Bayliss and Ms White, was admissible, and if so, whether the exclusion from the sailing event constituted unlawful sex discrimination. The court was required to consider the admissibility of opinion evidence, particularly in the context of expert testimony, and the application of the sporting exception within the *Sex Discrimination Act*.

Judge Mercuri ruled that the affidavits of Ms Bayliss and Ms White were inadmissible. This decision was based on the affidavits failing to comply with the rules for expert evidence, as they did not set out the information or assumptions relied upon by the deponents. The court applied sections 76 and 79 of the *Evidence Act 2008* (Vic), which govern the admissibility of opinion evidence and expert testimony, respectively. For expert evidence to be admissible, it must be based on specialised knowledge and be wholly or substantially based on that knowledge, criteria which the court found were not met. Consequently, the applications to admit this evidence and lead further evidence from Ms Bayliss were refused.