Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited & Ors v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited & Ors [2012] NSWSC 177

Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited & Ors v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited & Ors [2012] NSWSC 177

Dr Ferrier's first report, and consequently the second report and the corresponding part of the third report, were inadmissible because the estimates of future costs and revenues on which his opinions depended were not proven by admissible evidence. The TCG and Buchan reports did not satisfy s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 because it could not reasonably be supposed that their authors had personal knowledge of the asserted facts or obtained them from a person with such knowledge, and the estimates were opinion evidence not shown to have been formed by a person with specialised knowledge under s 79. HTT's submission of those reports to planning authorities amounted at most to a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Ruling During Hearing on Objections to Expert Reports and Leave to Rely on a Late Expert Report
Outcome
The tender of Dr Ferrier's report of 21 December 2010 and related subsequent reports was rejected, and leave to rely on Dr Ferrier's 23 February 2012 report was refused.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'relevance' 'proof of Assumption Rule' 'business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'admissions' 'opinion Evidence' 'leave to Rely on Late Expert Report']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'equity' 'trade Practices'] ['expert Evidence' 'relevance' 'proof of Assumption Rule' 'business Records Exception to Hearsay' 'admissions' 'opinion Evidence' 'leave to Rely on Late Expert Report']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Ruling During Hearing on Objections to Expert Reports and Leave to Rely on a Late Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Ferrier's first report expressed an opinion relevant to the pleaded issues in the proceedings." "Whether Dr Ferrier's first report was inadmissible because its factual assumptions, including estimates of project costs and revenues, were not otherwise proven." 'Whether the TCG and Buchan reports could prove the estimates as business records under s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether HTT's submission of the TCG and Buchan reports to planning authorities amounted to an admission sufficient to prove the estimates." "Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiffs to rely on Dr Ferrier's third report dated 23 February 2012, served during the hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Ferrier's first report, and consequently the second report and the corresponding part of the third report, were inadmissible because the estimates of future costs and revenues on which his opinions depended were not proven by admissible evidence. The TCG and Buchan reports did not satisfy s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 because it could not reasonably be supposed that their authors had personal knowledge of the asserted facts or obtained them from a person with such knowledge, and the estimates were opinion evidence not shown to have been formed by a person with specialised knowledge under s 79. HTT's submission of those reports to planning authorities amounted at most to a...

Court Disposition

The tender of Dr Ferrier's report of 21 December 2010 and related subsequent reports was rejected, and leave to rely on Dr Ferrier's 23 February 2012 report was refused.

Orders

  • ["The tender of Dr Ferrier's report of 21 December 2010 (and related subsequent reports) is rejected." "Leave is refused to the plaintiffs to rely on Dr Ferrier's 23 February 2012 report."]