Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd v Robinson [2024] NSWSC 375

Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd v Robinson [2024] NSWSC 375

Leave was granted because Mr Field's opinion on the land value as at 8 August 2018 was relevant and critical to the defendants' alternative transaction damages calculation, the plaintiff would suffer no apparent prejudice because the report was from its own expert valuer, and the plaintiff accepted that the hearing would not have been conducted differently if the report had been tendered earlier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Application by Defendants for Leave to Re Open Their Case to Tender and Rely Upon Extracts From Plaintiff's Expert Report After Hearing While Judgment Was Reserved
Outcome
Defendants granted leave to re-open their case to tender and rely upon extracts from the plaintiff's expert report, subject to service in satisfaction of UCPR r 31.28.
Legal Topics
['re Opening a Case' 'expert Evidence' 'tender of Expert Report' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 31.28' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct Damages Calculation']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['re Opening a Case' 'expert Evidence' 'tender of Expert Report' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 31.28' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct Damages Calculation']

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

Procedural Ruling / Application by Defendants for Leave to Re Open Their Case to Tender and Rely Upon Extracts From Plaintiff's Expert Report After Hearing While Judgment Was Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should be granted leave to re-open their case to tender and rely on extracts from the plaintiff's expert valuer's report." 'Whether the report should be admitted subject to service in satisfaction of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.28.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because Mr Field's opinion on the land value as at 8 August 2018 was relevant and critical to the defendants' alternative transaction damages calculation, the plaintiff would suffer no apparent prejudice because the report was from its own expert valuer, and the plaintiff accepted that the hearing would not have been conducted differently if the report had been tendered earlier.

Court Disposition

Defendants granted leave to re-open their case to tender and rely upon extracts from the plaintiff's expert report, subject to service in satisfaction of UCPR r 31.28.

Orders

  • ["Leave granted to rely upon Mr Field's report subject to it being served in satisfaction with the requirements of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.28." "Mr Field's report is to be marked as Exhibit 6." "The tender is confined to Mr Field's opinions in par 17.3 to 17.14." 'Costs are costs in the...