Graham Leonard Brand v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited; Christopher Gerard Kelliher v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited

The matter involved two separate proceedings brought by Graham Leonard Brand and Christopher Gerard Kelliher against Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited. Both Brand and Kelliher alleged breaches of contract and sought damages. The cases were consolidated for trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue was whether an accountant, who was not an expert in the field of information technology, was qualified to give expert evidence on the meaning of technical terms used in a contract concerning software development. This question hinged on whether the accountant had the necessary specialised knowledge to interpret the technical terms in the context of the contract under the Evidence Act.

The court had to consider whether the accountant's qualifications and experience allowed him to form an opinion on the meaning of technical terms used in the software development contract. The court examined the Evidence Act, specifically section 80, which pertains to the admissibility of expert evidence. The central question was whether the accountant's knowledge and expertise in accounting qualified him to interpret the technical language used in the contract. The court found that the accountant's expertise was limited to accounting and did not extend to the specialised field of information technology. Therefore, the court held that the accountant was not qualified to provide expert evidence on the meaning of the technical terms in the software development contract.

Consequently, the court ruled that the expert evidence provided by the accountant was inadmissible under the Evidence Act. This decision impacted the plaintiffs' ability to rely on the accountant's interpretation of the contract terms in their claims against Digi-Tech. The court's ruling effectively barred the admission of the accountant's evidence regarding the meaning of the technical terms in the software development contract. The final orders of the court reflected this ruling, excluding the accountant's evidence from consideration in the determination of the plaintiffs' claims.