Hodgson v Amcor Ltd - [2011] VSC 272

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9420 of 2004

JAMES GEORGE HODGSON	Plaintiff
v
AMCOR LTD (ACN 000 017 372)	Defendant

No. 8181 of 2004

AMCOR LTD AND ORS (ACN 000 017 372)	Plaintiffs
v
TREVOR MARK BARNES AND ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2011
DATE OF RULING:	2 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HODGSON v AMCOR LTD; AMCOR LTD v BARNES (No. 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 272

---

EVIDENCE– Distinction between opinion evidence and factual evidence – Admissibility of expert evidence of facts – Expert with experience in computer forensic analysis assisted in data retrieval - Whether an expert opinion — Document in question (computer data) not available - ss.48(4), 76 and 79 Evidence Act2008;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Case management – Civil Procedure Act 2010 – Case management orders made pursuant to s 47(1) – Balance between case management requirements and the necessity to ensure a fair trial - Rule 44 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 - Whether applicable to expert statement where facts stated but where no opinion expressed.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff (9420 of 2004)	Mr C Gunst QC with Mr P Booth of counsel	A.J. Macken & Co
For the Defendant (9420 of 2004)	Mr WT Houghton QC with Dr SB McNicol and Mr G Fitzgerald of counsel	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Plaintiffs (8181 of 2007)	Mr WT Houghton QC with Dr SB McNicol and Mr G Fitzgerald of counsel	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
The First Defendant (8181 of 2007)	Mr T Barnes appeared in person
The Second–Fourth Defendants (8181 of 2007)	Mr P Riordan SC with Mr SJ Maiden of counsel	Mills Oakley
The Fifth Defendant (8181 of 2007)	Mr Sangster appeared in person
The Sixth–Seventh Defendants (8181 of 2007)	Mr M Champion of counsel	Mr David Shaw

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The Amcor parties, which include the defendant in proceeding No. 9420 of 2004 and the plaintiffs in proceeding No. 8181 of 2004 (“Amcor” or the “Amcor parties”), in the course of the trial seek to call and rely upon the evidence of Graham Robinson Conn.

Mr Conn is a principal at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, (“Deloitte”), working in Deloitte's forensic division. He has been employed by Deloitte for seven years as a specialist in computer forensics.

Prior to his involvement with Deloitte he was the senior manager in the Security Technology Services Division of Ernst & Young accountants, where he also specialised in computer forensics. He commenced employment with Ernst & Young in 2000.

Before joining Ernst & Young he was an officer of the Victoria Police Force, a position he occupied for a total of 17 years. He rose to the rank of Senior Detective in the Victorian Police Computer Crime Investigation Squad. In this role his duties included:

(a) forensic analysis of computer systems;
(b)conducting computer crime investigations involving fraudulent data entries, falsification of documents,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hodgson v Amcor Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hodgson v Amcor Ltd [2011] VSC 272
Case: [2011] VSC 272
Decision Date: 2 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hodgson v Amcor Ltd, the plaintiff sought to establish the existence and content of certain emails through expert evidence, despite the emails themselves being unavailable. The dispute centred on the admissibility of the expert's evidence concerning the retrieval and analysis of computer data. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had to determine the legal issues regarding the distinction between opinion evidence and factual evidence, particularly in the context of expert evidence of facts, and the balance between case management requirements and the need for a fair trial.

The court was required to decide whether the expert's evidence, which detailed the factual process of data retrieval and analysis without expressing an opinion, was admissible under the Evidence Act 2008. Specifically, the court considered whether the evidence fell within the exceptions for factual evidence provided by sections 48(4), 76, and 79 of the Act. The court also needed to address the applicability of Rule 44 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, which concerns the making of case management orders, and its interaction with the principles of ensuring a fair trial.

The Supreme Court found that the expert's evidence was admissible as factual evidence, as it detailed the process of data retrieval and analysis without expressing an opinion. The court reasoned that such evidence was necessary for the tribunal of fact to understand the methodology used in the data recovery process. The court also held that the case management orders did not unduly prejudice the plaintiff's right to a fair trial, as the orders were made to ensure the efficient management of the case while still allowing for a full and fair presentation of the plaintiff's case. The court concluded that the evidence was properly admitted and did not violate the principles of natural justice or fairness.

The court ordered that the expert evidence be admitted and considered by the tribunal of fact in determining the existence and content of the emails in question. The case management orders were upheld, as they were deemed necessary for the efficient administration of justice and did not infringe upon the plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

Orders