Street & 7 Ors v Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd & 3 Ors

In the Federal Court, Street and six others filed a claim against Luna Park Sydney and three other defendants, asserting that they had suffered injuries at the amusement park. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were negligent in failing to ensure the safety of the rides, resulting in the injuries. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of expert evidence based on literature from non-peer reviewed journals and whether such evidence could establish the knowledge upon which the expert's opinion was founded.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether expert evidence derived from literature published in non-peer reviewed journals could be admitted as evidence. Furthermore, the court had to consider if such evidence could substantiate the expert's knowledge and whether it met the criteria for admissibility under the relevant legal framework. The plaintiffs argued that the evidence was pertinent and reliable, while the defendants contested its admissibility on the basis that it did not meet the necessary standards of reliability and peer review.

The court deliberated on the principles governing the admissibility of expert evidence, emphasising the importance of reliability and relevance. It concluded that evidence from non-peer reviewed journals could be admitted if it could be shown that the literature was sufficiently reliable and relevant to the case. The court found that the expert's opinion was grounded on a sound basis and that the literature, despite not being peer-reviewed, was credible and relevant. Consequently, the court allowed the admission of the expert evidence, finding it met the requisite standards for admissibility.

The final orders of the court confirmed the admissibility of the expert evidence in question, allowing the case to proceed with this evidence being considered in the determination of the merits of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants.