In the defamation case, the court did not need to place weight on the expert evidence of the forensic lipreader.

Validity of medical expert's opinion challenged in recent case.

Expert evidence should be logical, consistent and well-reasoned in order to be compelling.

Expert was found not to have met the expert witness code's requirements in a recent case.

Experimental evidence can be expensive and time consuming, and not a just, quick and cheap resolution of proceedings.

In recent case one expert's opinion was preferred over another's for a variety of reasons outlined here.

Key takeaways from recent case where experts held different views.

The applicant's approach in initiating and continuing its case did not lead to the just, quick, and cheap resolution.

NSWCATAD did not accept a "report" which had been styled as expert evidence, but which had been prepared by the applicant.

Expert valuers must ensure that their valuations follow the instructions provided by the parties and the contract terms.

Federal Court held that an interlocutory objection to admissibility of an expert report in its entirety, failed.

Examples of acts by an expert witness that would constitute advocating for one of the parties.

Experts must not act as an advocate and an expert in the same matter, even if there is a hiatus in between.

ACN 627 087 030 Pty Ltd as trustee for the YBL Trust (ABN 36 417 292 176) trading as Yates Beaggi Lawyers v Andrew John Price; ACN 627 087 030 Pty Ltd as trustee for the YBL Trust (ABN 36 417 292 176) trading as Yates Beaggi Lawyers v Elisabeth Theodore[2024] NSWDC 121

An expert who had previously written reports & presented evidence in various courts was still found to have "doubtful qualifications".

When representing the same party, experts should be aware of similarities in content and expression in their opinions.

Discusses recent case where the appellants disputed the amount offered by Valuer General for their compulsorily acquired land.

Court ruled that the restriction upon multiple experts should yield to the plaintiff's concern to explore the comparison between the clinical indications for thrombolysis and clot retrieval.

An expert's current or past employment relationship with one of the parties does not, on its own, mean their evidence is automatically biased or will be inadmissible.

Reopening a case may prejudice the other party or new evidence may impact the result.