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. 3) [2012] NSWSC 1661

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. 3) [2012] NSWSC 1661

Telstra and the Edwards children were parties affected by the aviation experts' opinions and procedural fairness required that they not be shut out from seeking to cross-examine those witnesses. The Court, as tribunal of fact, should not be confined to brief joint reports where earlier detailed reports may reveal changes or refinements in an expert's opinion, and concurrent evidence would assist the Court to understand the experts' positions on the real issues without causing unfairness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Claims for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution Arising From a Helicopter Accident / Ruling on Expert Evidence, Including Objections to Tender of Earlier Aviation Expert Reports and to Oral Evidence or Cross Examination
Outcome
Concurrent oral evidence of the aviation experts allowed.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'concurrent Evidence' 'cross Examination of Experts' 'joint Expert Reports' 'procedural Fairness']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'concurrent Evidence' 'cross Examination of Experts' 'joint Expert Reports' 'procedural Fairness']

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 in Claims for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution Arising From a Helicopter Accident / Ruling on Expert Evidence, Including Objections to Tender of Earlier Aviation Expert Reports and to Oral Evidence or Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether only the two joint reports of the aviation experts should be received in evidence.' 'Whether earlier individual reports of Mr Ogden, and the report of Mr Macarthur-Onslow, should be excluded or remain for possible tender.' 'Whether the aviation experts should give oral evidence concurrently and be available for cross-examination by parties affected by their opinions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Telstra and the Edwards children were parties affected by the aviation experts' opinions and procedural fairness required that they not be shut out from seeking to cross-examine those witnesses. The Court, as tribunal of fact, should not be confined to brief joint reports where earlier detailed reports may reveal changes or refinements in an expert's opinion, and concurrent evidence would assist the Court to understand the experts' positions on the real issues without causing unfairness.

Court Disposition

Concurrent oral evidence of the aviation experts allowed.

Orders

  • ['The two aviation experts, Mr Ogden and Mr Macarthur-Onslow, are to give evidence concurrently.' 'The process will permit cross-examination by Mr Fagan SC and Mr Andrews, and cross-examination and examination by Mr McIlwaine SC and Mr Ashton on matters that arise.']