Case: Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association v Jetopay [2000] FCA 1463 ; (2000) 120 FCR 146 
Outcome: discussed
In Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association v Jetopay [2000] FCA 1463 ; (2000) 120 FCR 146, the Full Court of the Federal Court dealt with the question of the content of an expert report. The matter is conveniently dealt with in Makita [2001] NSWCA 305 ; 52 NSWLR 705, at [86] in which [21], [22] and [23] of the judgment of Black CJ and Cooper and Emmett JJ in Jetopay are set out. Those paragraphs are in the following terms: 21. The primary judge considered that it was permissible to examine the reports and draw inferences from the form and contents of them. His Honour considered that it was permissible to take into account: &#8226; the factual context in which a report was produced; &#8226; the description and designation of the person making the report; &#8226; the contents and language of the report and the nature of the assertions made in it; &#8226; the form of the report; &#8226; the expressed qualifications of the person making it as set out in the report. 22. However, it is not permissible to conclude from those matters alone that an author of a report has any specialised knowledge, except to the extent that the report states (or it otherwise appears from admissible evidence) what that knowledge is. Nor is it permissible, by reason of those matters alone, to conclude that any specialised knowledge that the author of a report has is based on any training, study or experience of the author. Thus, it is not permissible to conclude, simply because a person expresses an opinion on a particular subject, referring to particular technology, that that person has any specialised knowledge in relation to that subject. There must be specific evidence as to specialised knowledge of the person in relation to that subject and as to the training, study or experience upon which that specialised knowledge is based. 23. The further requirement that an opinion be based on specialised knowledge would normally be satisfied by the person who expresses the opinion demonstrating the reasoning process by which the opinion was reached. Thus, a report in which an opinion is recorded should expose the reasoning of its author in a way that would demonstrate that the opinion is based on particular specialised knowledge. Similarly, opinion evidence given orally should be shown, by exposure of the reasoning process, to be based on relevant specialised knowledge. [emphasis in original] 34 Jetopay [2000] FCA 1463 ; 120 FCR 146, as those paragraphs identify, was concerned with the necessity to understand from the form and text of the evidence that the opinion being proffered was based on specialised knowledge. The case is not authority for anything further. 37 His Honour went on to refer to [21] to [23] of the reasons of the Full Court in Jetopay [2000] FCA 1463 ; 120 FCR 146. His Honour was apparently not referred to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Quick v Stoland 87 FCR 391. His Honour did not deal with it. However, it is fair to say that the views expressed by his Honour in [85] are contrary to those expressed by Branson J in Quick v Stoland 87 FCR 391 and, as I read Emmett J's judgment, to Emmett J's views as well.