Edwards and Ors v Endeavour Energy and Others; Precision Helicopters Pty Limited v Endeavour Energy and Ors; Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters Pty Limited and Anor (No. 1) [2012] NSWSC 1659

Edwards and Ors v Endeavour Energy and Others; Precision Helicopters Pty Limited v Endeavour Energy and Ors; Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters Pty Limited and Anor (No. 1) [2012] NSWSC 1659

The existing joint aviation expert report had difficulties because the experts appeared to have relied on inadmissible ATSB material and on a 2006 standard rather than the applicable 2004 guideline. To ensure an effective foundation for concurrent expert evidence, the experts should be told not to take the ATSB report into account, should rely on the provided factual assumptions where appropriate, and should be provided with specified further documents for a further joint report, with the Court approving the communication because of the sensitivity of the expert conference process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Arising From a Helicopter Crash, Including Claims for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution / Interlocutory Applications Concerning a Joint Aviation Expert Report and Further Communications With Experts
Outcome
The Court did not accept Endeavour's objection to further expert contact and directed preparation of a draft letter for Court approval to facilitate a further joint expert report.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of ATSB Reports' 'joint Conferences of Expert Witnesses' 'concurrent Expert Evidence' 'communications With Experts' 'aviation Expert Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence'] ['admissibility of ATSB Reports' 'joint Conferences of Expert Witnesses' 'concurrent Expert Evidence' 'communications With Experts' 'aviation Expert Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings Arising From a Helicopter Crash, Including Claims for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution / Interlocutory Applications Concerning a Joint Aviation Expert Report and Further Communications With Experts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether aviation experts' reliance on an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report created difficulty where the report was not admissible in the proceedings." 'Whether the experts should be instructed not to take the ATSB report into account and to rely on factual assumptions concerning altitude and speed.' "Whether further documents, including 2001 guidelines, 2004 guidelines, contract extracts and Mr Ogden's report of 20 April 2012, should be provided to the experts for a further joint report." 'How communications with experts should be managed after a conclave and joint report, having regard to Practice Note SC GEN 11.']

Ratio Decidendi

The existing joint aviation expert report had difficulties because the experts appeared to have relied on inadmissible ATSB material and on a 2006 standard rather than the applicable 2004 guideline. To ensure an effective foundation for concurrent expert evidence, the experts should be told not to take the ATSB report into account, should rely on the provided factual assumptions where appropriate, and should be provided with specified further documents for a further joint report, with the Court approving the communication because of the sensitivity of the expert conference process.

Court Disposition

The Court did not accept Endeavour's objection to further expert contact and directed preparation of a draft letter for Court approval to facilitate a further joint expert report.

Orders

  • ['The relevant legal representatives are to prepare a draft letter identifying the further documents to be provided to the experts.' "The further documents to be identified are the 2001 guidelines (MFI4), the 2004 guidelines (Exhibit EE2, pages 285-305), the extract from the contract (Exhibit EE2, pages 428-430) and...