McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Evidentiary Ruling) [2023] FCA 1268 This evidential ruling in a class action concerning the alleged carcinogenic
![Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1217](https://expertsdirect.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Australian-Securities-and-Investments-Commission-v-Australia-New-Zealand-Banking-Group-Limited-No-2-2023-FCA-1217-900x603.jpg)
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1217, the evidence of an expert with “real
![Jensen v Valuer-General (No 2) [2023] QLC 13](https://expertsdirect.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Jensen-v-Valuer-General-No-2-2023-QLC-13-900x603.jpg)
Jensen & Anor v Valuer-General (No 2) [2023] QLC 13 In this case, the court considered the issue of independence and bias in the context
![Sanofi v Amgen Inc (No 2) [2023] FCA 1156](https://expertsdirect.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Sanofi-v-Amgen-Inc-No-2-2023-FCA-1156-900x603.jpg)
Sanofi v Amgen Inc (No 2) [2023] FCA 1156 Sanofi appealed a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents in respect of proceedings commenced
Hastwell v Parmegiani** [2023] NSWSC 1016** In this case, the court upheld an expert’s entitlement to immunity from suit, notwithstanding that the expert’s report
![Enkelmann & Ors v Stewart & Anor [2023] QCA 155](https://expertsdirect.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Enkelmann-Ors-v-Stewart-Anor-2023-QCA-155-900x603.jpg)
Note: this case concerns the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in force in Queensland. The issue of whether a document consisting of a statement or
