United Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Lopmand Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 870

United Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Lopmand Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 870

The Court held that, as the expert's report contained the required acknowledgment of the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, mandatory rejection under Part 36 rule 13C was not required despite the late provision of the Code. Further, in the context of the differences between the experts and the issues for decision, there was no real risk that the evidence would mislead the Court or unfairly prejudice the other party. Therefore, exclusion under section 135 Evidence Act 1995 was not warranted, and the evidence was allowed.

Parties
First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: United Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Lopmand Pty Ltd; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Tracey John Lake; Second Cross Defendant: Gregory Hamilton Willoughby Lindsay-Owen; Third Cross Defendant: Lindsay-Owen Holdings Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Alyson Rosemary Lake
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity / Interlocutory Determination on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Evidence allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Oppression Remedy, Compulsory Acquisition of Shares
Evidence Equity Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Oppression Remedy Compulsory Acquisition of Shares

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Lopmand Pty Ltd

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Tracey John Lake

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Gregory Hamilton Willoughby Lindsay-Owen

Second Cross Defendant

Lindsay-Owen Holdings Pty Limited

Third Cross Defendant

Alyson Rosemary Lake

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Interlocutory Determination on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert's evidence should be excluded for failure to provide the Expert Witness Code of Conduct at commencement of engagement under Part 36 rule 13C Supreme Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether evidence should be excluded under section 135 Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, as the expert's report contained the required acknowledgment of the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, mandatory rejection under Part 36 rule 13C was not required despite the late provision of the Code. Further, in the context of the differences between the experts and the issues for decision, there was no real risk that the evidence would mislead the Court or unfairly prejudice the other party. Therefore, exclusion under section 135 Evidence Act 1995 was not warranted, and the evidence was allowed.

Court Disposition

Evidence allowed

Orders

  • The affidavit of Mr Brigden was admitted into evidence