CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 1) [2010] FCA 1340

CMA Corporation Limited v Rowe (No 1) [2010] FCA 1340

The respondents were refused leave to rely on the three late CB Richard Ellis letters because they had long known the trial date and evidence deadlines, failed to retain experts or raise difficulties with the Court in time, provided reports that were preliminary and inadmissible because they lacked reasoning, and admitting the material would likely require adjournment to mid 2011 and cause substantial prejudice to the applicants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Case Management Application Concerning Late Expert Valuation Evidence / During Final Hearing After Trial Commenced on 29 November 2010
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['case Management' 'late Expert Evidence' 'expert Valuation Evidence' 'adjournment and Prejudice']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['case Management' 'late Expert Evidence' 'expert Valuation Evidence' 'adjournment and Prejudice']

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

Practice and Procedure; Case Management Application Concerning Late Expert Valuation Evidence / During Final Hearing After Trial Commenced on 29 November 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should be permitted to rely upon expert valuation evidence served after the commencement of trial.' 'Whether the delay in obtaining and serving the three CB Richard Ellis letters was adequately explained.' 'Whether admission of the late valuation material would cause prejudice to the applicants or require adjournment of the trial.' 'Whether the three letters were in admissible form as expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were refused leave to rely on the three late CB Richard Ellis letters because they had long known the trial date and evidence deadlines, failed to retain experts or raise difficulties with the Court in time, provided reports that were preliminary and inadmissible because they lacked reasoning, and admitting the material would likely require adjournment to mid 2011 and cause substantial prejudice to the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application by the respondents to be permitted to rely upon expert evidence substantially in accordance with the three letters from CB Richard Ellis to Madgwicks dated 25, 26 and 29 November 2010 respectively which comprise MFI1 be refused.']