Search
Author

Seamus E. Byrne is an Australian Information Lawyer and Computer Forensics Expert with extensive e-discovery and electronic evidence experience.

Sponsored by Lion Forensic.

Subscribe (Free)

In Pursuit of Relevance is the leading e-discovery law blog for the Asia-Pacific.

Subscribe now and receive the latest blog entries via e-mail or RSS.

Blog Filter
Disclaimer

This website is made available by Seamus E. Byrne, an Australian legal practitioner, for educational purposes only. Content is not to be used as legal opinion or as a substitute to qualified matter-specific legal advisory within your jurisdiction. No responsibility is taken, or endorsement made, for the content of any externally hyperlinked webpage. All endeavours have been made to ensure content accuracy as at time of publication.

Administration
« Digital Forensic Investigations - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | Main | CEIC 2008 - International eDiscovery »
Wednesday
07May2008

Revised Expert Witness Guidelines in the Federal Court of Australia

Preliminary

On 5 May 2008, Chief Justice Black issued an update to the existing Practice Direction: 'Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in Proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia'.

This update replaced the earlier revision dated 6 June 2007.

Why?

Practitioners should give a copy of the following guidelines to any witness they propose to retain for the purpose of preparing a report or giving evidence in a proceeding as to an opinion held by the witness that is wholly or substantially based on the specialised knowledge of the witness (see - Part 3.3 - Opinion of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)).

What?

Per the Federal Court's website:

The new Practice Direction addresses concerns that the previous version, expressly or impliedly, prevented a practitioner from using an expert to assist that practitioner to understand the field of expertise relevant to the issues in the proceeding and then calling that expert as a witness in the proceeding.

In particular, a new paragraph has been added at the end of the Explanatory Memorandum which makes clear that the Practice Direction is not intended to require the retention of more than one expert on the same subject matter.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.