Expert Blog

Gender and Expert Witnesses – Part 2

Part 2: The Impact of the Gender of an Expert Witness In a 2001 study undertaken by the University of Queensland and the University of Toronto, researchers attempted to determine whether a female expert witness giving evidence pertaining to a female-dominated industry was more persuasive than a male counterpart. Four simulated civil trials were carried […]

Continue reading →

Gender and Expert Witnesses – Part 1

Part 1: The Role of Experts in Gender Sensitive Trials Gender issues play a large role in court room dynamics. On one hand, certain types of criminal trials such as sexual assault and domestic violence enshrine strong gender power imbalances and reflect broader social gender struggles. On the other hand, certain civil trials may centre […]

Continue reading →

Recap of Sydney Shareholder Class Action Hypothetical

It is with great delight that we announce the success of our Class Action Hypothetical events in Sydney and Melbourne, held in conjunction with Herbert Smith Freehills. We are especially grateful for the illuminating views provided by our moderator, Associate Professor Michael Legg and our other esteemed guests and panellists including Andrew Watson (Maurice Blackburn), […]

Continue reading →

NSW District Court – Joint Conferences for Expert Witnesses: Following the Supreme Court’s method for streamlining expert evidence

In January 2016, the NSW District Court followed the lead of superior NSW courts and introduced the requirement of joint conferencing for expert witnesses. As a result, where multiple experts are giving evidence on the same (or substantially the same) field of expertise they must now give their evidence concurrently following a joint conference of […]

Continue reading →

The Risk of Exclusion: Pitfalls of Irrelevant or Prejudicial Expert Evidence

There are many hurdles facing the admissibility and acceptance of expert evidence. The general opinion rule provides that “if a person has specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience” the opinion is admissible[1]. However, often forgotten, is the Court’s general discretion to exclude evidence which is either prejudicial or irrelevant. Even if […]

Continue reading →