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. 2) [2012] NSWSC 1660

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. 2) [2012] NSWSC 1660

Dr Brock's reports were admissible because, when fairly read as a whole and in light of the apparently undisputed factual matters concerning the accident, helicopter damage, cockpit blood spatter, Mr Edwards' position and injuries, the reports sufficiently explained the reasoning for the opinions on causation of the head injuries and the significance of helmet use. The alleged deficiency under the statement of reasoning rule was not present, and any challenge to the conclusions or reasons could be pursued by cross-examination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Common Law Proceedings for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution Arising From a Helicopter Accident / Tender of Expert Reports and Objection to Admissibility
Outcome
Endeavour Energy's objection to the tender of Dr Brock's reports was overruled; the reports were admitted.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Reports' 'statement of Reasoning Rule' 'leave to Adduce Oral Evidence' 'helicopter Accident Injuries']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Reports' 'statement of Reasoning Rule' 'leave to Adduce Oral Evidence' 'helicopter Accident Injuries']

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 Common Law Proceedings for Damages, Indemnity and Contribution Arising From a Helicopter Accident / Tender of Expert Reports and Objection to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Jeffrey Brock's reports dated 10 May 2010 and 11 July 2010 were inadmissible because they failed to expose his reasoning process for the conclusions reached." "Whether the reports sufficiently explained the causation opinion concerning Mr Edwards' head injuries and the helmet-related opinions." 'Whether leave should be granted under Rule 31.28 (3) and (4) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to adduce oral evidence if further reasoning was required.']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Brock's reports were admissible because, when fairly read as a whole and in light of the apparently undisputed factual matters concerning the accident, helicopter damage, cockpit blood spatter, Mr Edwards' position and injuries, the reports sufficiently explained the reasoning for the opinions on causation of the head injuries and the significance of helmet use. The alleged deficiency under the statement of reasoning rule was not present, and any challenge to the conclusions or reasons could be pursued by cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Endeavour Energy's objection to the tender of Dr Brock's reports was overruled; the reports were admitted.

Orders

  • ['Reports of Dr Jeffrey Brock dated 10 May 2010 and 11 July 2010 admitted.']