Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1697

Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1697

It is not appropriate for the interlocutory judge to determine the admissibility of the defendants' expert report prior to trial under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Even if so determined, Mr Parnell's report meets the statutory test for admissibility and provides sufficient analysis based on specialised knowledge. The Court should not direct the defendants' expert to give evidence on alternative assumptions, as decisions about what evidence to adduce and on what terms rest with the party and their counsel.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Marshall Ahern; Second Plaintiff: Estelle Therese Clancy; First Defendant: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd; Second Defendant: Trent Uno Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Leo Di Paolo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing of Notice of Motion Prior to Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motion dismissed. Registrar's direction vacated. Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Procedure, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Expert Reports, Directions Concerning Expert Witnesses
Evidence Civil Procedure Pre Trial Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Expert Reports Directions Concerning Expert Witnesses

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marshall Ahern

First Plaintiff

Estelle Therese Clancy

Second Plaintiff

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd

First Defendant

Trent Uno Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Leo Di Paolo

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing of Notice of Motion Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert report of Mr Lyndon Parnell is inadmissible under s 192A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Court should order the defendants to present their expert evidence in a particular way
  3. 3 Whether to maintain, vary, or vacate directions regarding the meeting of experts and preparation of a joint report

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate for the interlocutory judge to determine the admissibility of the defendants' expert report prior to trial under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Even if so determined, Mr Parnell's report meets the statutory test for admissibility and provides sufficient analysis based on specialised knowledge. The Court should not direct the defendants' expert to give evidence on alternative assumptions, as decisions about what evidence to adduce and on what terms rest with the party and their counsel.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' motion dismissed. Registrar's direction vacated. Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

  • Dismiss the notice of motion of the plaintiffs of 10 October 2014.
  • Vacate the direction of Registrar Bradford of 30 April 2014 concerning the meeting of experts and provision of their report.