Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & ors [2010] NSWSC 1524

Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & ors [2010] NSWSC 1524

Because a single expert quantity surveyor had been engaged on the cost of rectification works, the quotations were excluded by UCPR r 31.44 if tendered as reports on that issue; if tendered through Mrs Stolfa's affidavit as evidence of reasonable cost they were hearsay, and if tendered only to prove they were obtained they were irrelevant. The tender was therefore rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning an Inquiry as to Damages and Expert Evidence / Consequential Orders; Tender of Affidavit Paragraphs, Annexures and Quotation After Appointment of a Single Expert
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'single Expert' 'admissibility of Expert Reports' 'hearsay' 'relevance' 'rectification Works']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'single Expert' 'admissibility of Expert Reports' 'hearsay' 'relevance' 'rectification Works']

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

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning an Inquiry as to Damages and Expert Evidence / Consequential Orders; Tender of Affidavit Paragraphs, Annexures and Quotation After Appointment of a Single Expert

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraphs of Mrs Stolfa's affidavit annexing quotations, and a further quotation, should be admitted as evidence of the reasonable cost of rectification works after a single expert quantity surveyor had been engaged." 'Whether quotations tendered as annexures to an affidavit were hearsay or irrelevant.' 'Whether the quotations, if tendered in their own right as reports, were excluded by UCPR r 31.44.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because a single expert quantity surveyor had been engaged on the cost of rectification works, the quotations were excluded by UCPR r 31.44 if tendered as reports on that issue; if tendered through Mrs Stolfa's affidavit as evidence of reasonable cost they were hearsay, and if tendered only to prove they were obtained they were irrelevant. The tender was therefore rejected.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • ["Reject paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Mrs Stolfa's affidavit." "Reject annexures A and B of Mrs Stolfa's affidavit." 'Reject the Ferrocon quotation contained at pages 1 to 2 of the tender bundle.']