Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & Ors (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 531

Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & Ors (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 531

Leave was refused because Mr Ryan's earlier report did not scrutinise or expose error in Mr Branch's report, lacked the detailed reasoning found in Mr Branch's report, and did not sufficiently manifest a significant competing expert opinion to justify defeating the purpose of avoiding the cost of competing expert reports.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Expert Evidence / Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence of Another Expert Where a Parties' Single Expert Had Been Appointed
Outcome
Leave to adduce evidence of second expert refused.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' "parties' Single Expert" 'leave to Adduce Evidence of Another Expert' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules Part 31']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' "parties' Single Expert" 'leave to Adduce Evidence of Another Expert' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules Part 31']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling on Expert Evidence / Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence of Another Expert Where a Parties' Single Expert Had Been Appointed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to adduce evidence from Mr Ryan on issues addressed by the parties' single expert Mr Branch." "Whether Mr Ryan's report sufficiently manifested a significant competing expert opinion or exposed potential error in Mr Branch's report to warrant reception despite the purpose of avoiding competing expert reports."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Mr Ryan's earlier report did not scrutinise or expose error in Mr Branch's report, lacked the detailed reasoning found in Mr Branch's report, and did not sufficiently manifest a significant competing expert opinion to justify defeating the purpose of avoiding the cost of competing expert reports.

Court Disposition

Leave to adduce evidence of second expert refused.

Orders

  • ['That part of Mr Ryan\'s report under the heading "Stability of Existing Building", paragraphs 1 to 5 under that heading, is rejected.' "The same part of Mr Ryan's report in Annexure M to the affidavit of John Bennett Hempton, sworn 22 September 2007, is rejected." "The balance of Mr Ryan's affidavit and report is...