Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited

The case of Guy v Crown Melbourne Limited involved a legal dispute where the applicant alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law by Crown Melbourne and Aristocrat, focusing on the Dolphin Treasure electronic gaming machine. The respondents objected to the evidence provided by Dr. Livingstone, a Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, regarding the design and features of the gaming machine and their impact on problem gambling. Crown and Aristocrat argued that Dr. Livingstone's evidence was inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly regarding the qualifications and independence of expert witnesses. They contended that Dr. Livingstone's opinions were not based on specialized knowledge and lacked the necessary underlying bases.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of Dr. Livingstone's evidence under the opinion rule and section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court had to determine whether Dr. Livingstone's affidavit could be admitted as lay witness evidence despite not being qualified as an expert or complying with Part 23 of the Evidence Act. The court examined whether the evidence was based on specialized knowledge and whether Dr. Livingstone's qualifications and independence were sufficient to support his opinions. The applicant argued that the absence of independence did not bar admissibility but rather affected the weight the court should give to the evidence.

The court found that Dr. Livingstone's evidence was not admissible as expert evidence due to non-compliance with the relevant legal requirements. While Dr. Livingstone had extensive experience and knowledge related to poker machine gambling, his qualifications and independence did not meet the standards set out in the Evidence Act and the court's practice notes. The court acknowledged Dr. Livingstone's expertise but concluded that his evidence could not be relied upon as expert evidence because it did not comply with the necessary legal standards. Consequently, the objections to Dr. Livingstone's evidence were upheld in part and disallowed in part. The court allowed certain parts of Dr. Livingstone's evidence to be admitted as lay witness evidence, subject to specific conditions, including the ability to cross-examine him on the limited matters of his assistance to the applicant and his belief in her case's underlying tenets.