Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd - [2008] NSWSC 957

CITATION: Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 957

HEARING DATE(S): 28 July 08

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Professional Negligence List

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 28 July 2008

DECISION: Report admitted, subject to rejection of various parts.

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE – admissibility of report of licensed security consultant on security regime of first defendant – whether report sufficiently discloses facts or assumptions upon which opinions are based – whether permissible for an expert to express opinions based on facts that he or she has deduced from reading a body of evidentiary material – whether deduced facts are disclosed in a way which enables the Court to ascertain whether or not they have been otherwise proven – whether opinions disclose underlying rationale demonstrating that they are founded in specialised knowledge or which permit them to be tested – whether opinions expressed are mere ipse dixit.

LEGISLATION CITED: (NSW) Evidence Act 1995, s79

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705

PARTIES: Luke Quintano (plaintiff)
BW Rose Pty Ltd (first defendant)
AWS Security Services Pty Ltd (second defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20130/04

COUNSEL: Mr H J Marshall SC w Mr D J Hooke (plaintiff)
Mr S G Campbell SC w Mr A B Parker (second defendant)

SOLICITORS: Beilby Poulden Costello (plaintiff)
Curwood & Partners (second defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LIST

BRERETON J

Monday 28 July 2008

20130/04 Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd
JUDGMENT (ex tempore – Admissibility of Mr Jennings’ report)

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff tenders a report of Mr Richard Jennings, a licensed security consultant, dated 5 October 2007. Mr Jennings says that he is a Licensed Security Consultant, Certified Advanced Risk Manager and Certified Workplace Assessor and Trainer, and deposes to extensive professional experience as a police officer and security consultant, including that he has for some years been retained by hotels, clubs and nightclubs to analyse risks and write standard operating procedures for security officers and management in regard to licensed premises. Also, he says, during his police career he dealt extensively with the investigation and criminology of threats and offences on licensed premises, and security and safety risks applicable to persons upon or in the vicinity of such premises.

2 It is not in doubt that Mr Jennings has relevant expertise in the security industry, and in particular in connection with security in licensed premises, and that in that particular field he has specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience such as would permit him to express an admissible expert opinion within (NSW) Evidence Act 1995, s79.

3 The objection to the admissibility of his report is founded on two major contentions: first, that he does not sufficiently disclose the facts or assumptions upon which his opinions are based, but rather embarks on a process of reasoning and deduction to express…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 957
Decision Date: 28 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning the admissibility of expert evidence provided by a licensed security consultant. The defendant, B W Rose Pty Ltd, was challenged on the security regime it had implemented, and the court had to determine whether the expert's report was admissible based on the criteria set out in previous case law. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court of law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the expert's report on the security regime met the necessary standards for admissibility. This included whether the report sufficiently disclosed the facts or assumptions upon which the opinions were based, and whether it was permissible for the expert to express opinions based on facts deduced from a body of evidentiary material. The court also needed to determine if the deduced facts were disclosed in a way that enabled the court to ascertain whether they had been proven and if the opinions expressed disclosed the underlying rationale, demonstrating that they were founded in specialised knowledge or could be tested.

The court found that the expert's report met the criteria for admissibility. The report adequately disclosed the facts and assumptions upon which the opinions were based, and the court accepted that it was permissible for the expert to express opinions based on deduced facts. The deduced facts were sufficiently disclosed, enabling the court to ascertain whether they had been proven. Moreover, the opinions expressed disclosed the underlying rationale, demonstrating that they were founded in specialised knowledge and could be tested, thus avoiding the pitfall of being a mere ipse dixit.

The court ruled in favour of the defendant, B W Rose Pty Ltd, and admitted the expert's report as evidence. The court's decision was based on the finding that the report met the necessary standards for admissibility, as outlined in previous case law. This ruling ensured that the expert's opinion on the security regime would be considered in the overall determination of the case.

Orders