Dudley and Ryecroft

In the matter of *Dudley and Ryecroft*, Forrest J considered an application by the Applicant for permission to adduce expert evidence from a Mr V at a trial commencing shortly. The Respondent objected to the admission of this evidence.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Rule 15.51(1) of the relevant rules of court applied, thereby requiring the Applicant to seek the Court's permission to tender the affidavits of Mr V. This rule mandates that a party must apply for permission to adduce evidence from an expert witness, unless that witness is a single expert. The Applicant conceded that Mr V was an expert in accounting, possessing specialised knowledge gained from his training and experience. However, the Applicant argued that Mr V's evidence did not constitute "expert evidence" for the purposes of the rule, and therefore permission was not required.

Forrest J determined that the evidence contained within Mr V's affidavits was indeed expert evidence. His Honour reasoned that if an expert report is defined as a report by an expert witness, then expert evidence must be evidence given by an expert witness. Mr V was retained by the Applicant specifically because of his expertise as an accountant to perform a particular task and provide his opinions and conclusions. The Court found that Mr V's affidavits contained express references to his analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which were given weight and credibility due to his expert status. Consequently, Forrest J rejected the submission that the evidence was merely mechanical and not expert evidence, noting that such a view could raise significant questions regarding the admissibility of Mr V's opinions and conclusions under section 76 of the Evidence Act.

The Court ordered that permission to adduce the expert evidence contained within the affidavits of Mr V be refused. The Respondent's costs of and incidental to the hearing were reserved to the trial.