Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 2) [2023] FCA 698

Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 2) [2023] FCA 698

Because the relevance of substantial parts of the expert reports remained unresolved and the parties had widely divergent approaches to that issue, the Court could not properly assess the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent expert evidence. The interlocutory application for concurrent evidence was therefore stood over, and the proceeding was listed for case management so the parties could address whether the relevance issue should be determined as a threshold question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Under R 23.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Seeking Orders for Experts to Give Oral Evidence Concurrently / Application Stood Over; Proceeding Listed for Case Management on a Date to Be Advised
Outcome
The applicants' interlocutory application was stood over to a date to be advised.
Legal Topics
['concurrent Expert Evidence' 'expert Reports' 'relevance' 'reasonable Direction' 'covid 19 Vaccination Direction' 'overarching Purpose' 'threshold Question']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'contract' 'independent Contractors' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['concurrent Expert Evidence' 'expert Reports' 'relevance' 'reasonable Direction' 'covid 19 Vaccination Direction' 'overarching Purpose' 'threshold Question']

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 Application Under R 23.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Seeking Orders for Experts to Give Oral Evidence Concurrently / Application Stood Over; Proceeding Listed for Case Management on a Date to Be Advised

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders should be made under r 23.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the applicants' and respondent's experts to give oral evidence concurrently." "Whether the parties' divergent positions on the relevance of matters canvassed in the expert reports prevented proper assessment of the pros and cons of concurrent evidence at this stage." 'Whether the relevance of propositions pleaded at [17] of the statement of claim concerning COVID-19 and vaccination should be determined as a threshold question before expert evidence is given.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the relevance of substantial parts of the expert reports remained unresolved and the parties had widely divergent approaches to that issue, the Court could not properly assess the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent expert evidence. The interlocutory application for concurrent evidence was therefore stood over, and the proceeding was listed for case management so the parties could address whether the relevance issue should be determined as a threshold question.

Court Disposition

The applicants' interlocutory application was stood over to a date to be advised.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' interlocutory application filed on 5 June 2023 be stood over to a date to be advised." 'The proceeding be listed for case management on a date to be advised.']