Roach & Ors v Freehill Hollingdale & Page & Ors [2001] NSWSC 95

Roach & Ors v Freehill Hollingdale & Page & Ors [2001] NSWSC 95

Leave to file the three affidavits out of time was granted because Mr Robertson had changed material opinions after obtaining new information that largely arose after the earlier expert evidence, a supplementary report was required and should be served, the associated Biogreen and accounting evidence was necessary, the material could not realistically have been obtained by May 2000, it might be relevant to damages if assessed at trial, no trial date had been fixed, and the defendants could respond. The order for ongoing expert consultation was refused because it would give too much significance to Biogreen's current affairs and future expectations. Given past delays, the plaintiffs were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceeding / Notice of Motion for Leave to File Three Affidavits Out of Time
Outcome
Order 1 as sought in the Notice of Motion granted; Order 2 refused; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Affidavits Out of Time' 'expert Evidence' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'damages Assessment']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence'] ['leave to File Affidavits Out of Time' 'expert Evidence' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'damages Assessment']

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

Professional Negligence Proceeding / Notice of Motion for Leave to File Three Affidavits Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file three affidavits out of time.' "Whether ongoing consultation between the parties' experts should be ordered." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the three affidavits out of time was granted because Mr Robertson had changed material opinions after obtaining new information that largely arose after the earlier expert evidence, a supplementary report was required and should be served, the associated Biogreen and accounting evidence was necessary, the material could not realistically have been obtained by May 2000, it might be relevant to damages if assessed at trial, no trial date had been fixed, and the defendants could respond. The order for ongoing expert consultation was refused because it would give too much significance to Biogreen's current affairs and future expectations. Given past delays, the plaintiffs were...

Court Disposition

Order 1 as sought in the Notice of Motion granted; Order 2 refused; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 as sought in the Notice of Motion granted.' 'Order 2 requiring ongoing consultation between the experts for the parties not made.' "The plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the application."]