Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 304

Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 304

The defendant established no basis for excluding any of the four joint expert reports. The UCPR joint report regime requires reasons for disagreement but not for agreement, and the reports were to be assessed in the context of the experts' prior reports and the court-ordered conclave process. The experts had been provided with evidentiary statements or relevant material, the questions addressed relevant matters within their expertise, and the reports identified agreements and disagreements sufficiently for the purposes of the rules. No unfair prejudice, risk of misleading or confusing the court, or undue waste of time justified exclusion under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995; admitting the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings; Interlocutory Application Concerning Expert Evidence / Part Heard Hearing; Defendant's Application to Exclude Joint Reports of Four Expert Conclaves From Evidence
Outcome
Defendant's application refused.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Joint Expert Reports' 'concurrent Expert Evidence' 'reasons for Agreement Between Experts' 'makita Principle' 'statement of Reasoning Rule' 'evidence Act 1995 S 79' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 31']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'personal Injury Negligence'] ['admissibility of Joint Expert Reports' 'concurrent Expert Evidence' 'reasons for Agreement Between Experts' 'makita Principle' 'statement of Reasoning Rule' 'evidence Act 1995 S 79' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 31']

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

Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings; Interlocutory Application Concerning Expert Evidence / Part Heard Hearing; Defendant's Application to Exclude Joint Reports of Four Expert Conclaves From Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the joint reports of the orthopaedic, diabetes, occupational therapists and vocational conclaves should be excluded from evidence.' 'Whether joint expert reports must contain reasons for matters agreed between experts.' 'Whether the experts were required to be provided with a joint statement of assumptions rather than witness statements.' 'Whether the questions asked of the conclaves were too broad or inappropriate for expert consideration.' 'Whether alleged consideration of extraneous material or failure to identify material relied upon affected admissibility.' 'Whether the reports were inconsistent with s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995, the common law statement of reasoning rule or the Makita principle.' 'Whether the discretion under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 should be exercised to exclude the reports.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established no basis for excluding any of the four joint expert reports. The UCPR joint report regime requires reasons for disagreement but not for agreement, and the reports were to be assessed in the context of the experts' prior reports and the court-ordered conclave process. The experts had been provided with evidentiary statements or relevant material, the questions addressed relevant matters within their expertise, and the reports identified agreements and disagreements sufficiently for the purposes of the rules. No unfair prejudice, risk of misleading or confusing the court, or undue waste of time justified exclusion under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995; admitting the...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application refused.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's application to exclude from evidence the joint reports of the four conclaves referred to in [16] from evidence, is refused." 'The Court will hear the parties on the question of costs of the application.']