Bone v Wallalong Investments [2012] NSWSC 137

Bone v Wallalong Investments [2012] NSWSC 137

The tender of Mr Hadley's valuation report was rejected because the report did not demonstrate how the valuation conclusions were wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge. It failed to explain how the market evidence led to an unzoned value of $150,000 per hectare, failed similarly to explain the asserted zoned value of $400,000 per hectare, and failed to explain the intellectual basis for the discount rates used. The absence of this reasoning meant the report was not shown to satisfy s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). In any event, the report would have been excluded under s 135 because it would be unfair to require the defendants to elicit and challenge the reasoning...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Commercial List Proceeding for Damages for Breach of Contract for Sale and Guarantees / Trial Objection to Tender of Expert Valuation Report
Outcome
Tender of expert report rejected
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'valuation Evidence' 'direct Comparison Valuation Method' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'obligations to Facilitate Just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Issues']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence' 'contract'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'expert Witness Code of Conduct' 'valuation Evidence' 'direct Comparison Valuation Method' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'obligations to Facilitate Just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Issues']

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 and Other Ruling in Equity Division Commercial List Proceeding for Damages for Breach of Contract for Sale and Guarantees / Trial Objection to Tender of Expert Valuation Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the valuation report should be rejected for non-compliance with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct because materials utilised were not included or annexed.' "Whether the report disclosed how the valuer's conclusions were wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge for the purposes of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the report sufficiently disclosed the reasoning process connecting comparable sales and discount rates to the valuation opinions.' 'Whether, if otherwise admissible, the report should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) on fairness grounds.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender of Mr Hadley's valuation report was rejected because the report did not demonstrate how the valuation conclusions were wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge. It failed to explain how the market evidence led to an unzoned value of $150,000 per hectare, failed similarly to explain the asserted zoned value of $400,000 per hectare, and failed to explain the intellectual basis for the discount rates used. The absence of this reasoning meant the report was not shown to satisfy s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). In any event, the report would have been excluded under s 135 because it would be unfair to require the defendants to elicit and challenge the reasoning...

Court Disposition

Tender of expert report rejected

Orders

  • ["The tender of Mr Hadley's valuation report as at the date 12 March 2010 is rejected."]