Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram

In *Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning the admissibility and weight of expert evidence. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident, and the central issue on appeal related to the differing opinions of expert witnesses regarding the cause of the accident.

The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain expert evidence and, more broadly, how to approach expert evidence where significant differences of opinion exist between experts, particularly when those differences appear to have been exacerbated by the litigation process itself. The Court also had to consider the weight to be given to such evidence in reaching a factual conclusion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's approach, holding that the resolution of disputes where expert opinions diverge is ultimately a matter of evaluative judgment for the trial judge. The Court emphasised that the adversarial nature of litigation can sometimes accentuate differences between experts, but this does not necessarily render their evidence inadmissible or devoid of weight. The trial judge's role is to assess the entirety of the evidence, including the expert testimony, and to form their own conclusions based on that assessment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.