Westpac Banking Corporation v Chauhan

The case of Westpac Banking Corporation v Chauhan involved the admissibility and weight to be given to expert evidence provided by Dr Gupta in the context of a dispute between the parties. The court was tasked with determining whether the expert opinion provided by Dr Gupta was properly based on specialised knowledge and whether it formed a proper foundation for the opinion given. The appellant argued that the connection between Dr Gupta's opinion and the facts was absent, while the respondent maintained that the expert opinion was admissible and should be given weight. The court considered the authorities from cases such as Makita, Paric, and Hancock, which outline the requirements for the admissibility and weight of expert evidence.

The court found that strict non-compliance with the Makita principles does not necessarily render expert evidence inadmissible or of little weight. Instead, the court should consider whether the expert evidence provides a satisfactory basis upon which the tribunal can make its findings. The court also noted that there may be other admissible evidence available to substantiate the opinion of an expert. In this case, the court found that the learned arbitrator had correctly assessed the expert testimony in accordance with the relevant authorities and had not erred in his approach.

The court ultimately upheld the certificate of determination issued by the arbitrator, with a minor amendment to the date specified in Order 1. The court confirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding that it was correct and that the expert evidence provided by Dr Gupta was admissible and of appropriate weight. The court's decision highlights the importance of properly assessing expert evidence in accordance with the relevant legal principles, while also acknowledging that strict compliance with every aspect of the Makita principles is not always necessary.