De Rose v The State of SA (No 3) [2001] FCA 1615

De Rose v The State of SA (No 3) [2001] FCA 1615

The sixty-two pages of Dr Willis' doctoral thesis were expert material directly covered by the Court's orders of 10 August 2000 and the Court's practice direction, notwithstanding that the thesis was not prepared as a retained report. The applicants knew by late August 2001 that the thesis contained material relevant to the case but did not notify the respondents of an intention to tender it until 9 October 2001. That late notice was contrary to fair trial management and caused prejudice because the material would or might have been used in cross-examination of Aboriginal and expert witnesses, and recalling those witnesses was wholly impractical. The tender and related oral evidence were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Ruling in Substantive Proceeding / During Trial; Ex Tempore Ruling on Application to Tender Selected Pages From an Expert's Doctoral Thesis and Lead Evidence About It
Outcome
The applicants' application to tender selected pages from Dr John Willis' doctoral thesis was refused; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'tender of Documents' "court Timetables for Experts' Reports" 'late Disclosure' 'prejudice' 'costs Reserved']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'tender of Documents' "court Timetables for Experts' Reports" 'late Disclosure' 'prejudice' 'costs Reserved']

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

Practice and Procedure Ruling in Substantive Proceeding / During Trial; Ex Tempore Ruling on Application to Tender Selected Pages From an Expert's Doctoral Thesis and Lead Evidence About It

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be permitted to tender sixty-two pages from Dr John Willis' doctoral thesis during the trial." "Whether the thesis extracts were material covered by the Court's orders and practice direction concerning exchange of expert reports." 'Whether the applicants should be permitted to lead oral evidence from Dr Willis outside the topics of his report dated 21 November 2000.' 'Whether the late notification of an intention to tender the thesis extracts caused unfair prejudice to the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sixty-two pages of Dr Willis' doctoral thesis were expert material directly covered by the Court's orders of 10 August 2000 and the Court's practice direction, notwithstanding that the thesis was not prepared as a retained report. The applicants knew by late August 2001 that the thesis contained material relevant to the case but did not notify the respondents of an intention to tender it until 9 October 2001. That late notice was contrary to fair trial management and caused prejudice because the material would or might have been used in cross-examination of Aboriginal and expert witnesses, and recalling those witnesses was wholly impractical. The tender and related oral evidence were...

Court Disposition

The applicants' application to tender selected pages from Dr John Willis' doctoral thesis was refused; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application by the applicants to tender selected pages from the doctoral thesis of Dr John Willis be refused.' 'The question of costs be reserved.']