Jones v Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited [2019] NSWSC 1228

Jones v Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited [2019] NSWSC 1228

The Court refused to otherwise order under UCPR r 31.23(3) because the 29 July 2011 report was unsigned, contained no code of conduct acknowledgment, was not later adopted by its authors, did not establish the expertise of one stated author or identify responsibility for opinions, was expressly preliminary and for the sole use of the client, contained disclaimers inconsistent with reliance by the Court, lacked adequate evidence about sampling and handling, and no adequate explanation was given for the absence of a compliant expert report or later evidence from the authors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Admissibility of Expert Evidence / Hearing of Objection to Admission of Expert Report
Outcome
The defendant's objection was upheld and the 29 July 2011 report was not admitted in evidence.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'expert Report Code of Conduct' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 31.23' 'exclusion of Evidence Under Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'expert Report Code of Conduct' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 31.23' 'exclusion of Evidence Under Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135']

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 Concerning Admissibility of Expert Evidence / Hearing of Objection to Admission of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 29 July 2011 report of EAL Consulting Services could be admitted despite not containing an acknowledgment that the expert witness had read and agreed to be bound by the expert witness code of conduct.' 'Whether the Court should otherwise order under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 31.23(3).' 'Whether deficiencies in authorship, expertise, adoption of opinions, preliminary character, disclaimers, and sampling evidence justified refusing admission of the report.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to otherwise order under UCPR r 31.23(3) because the 29 July 2011 report was unsigned, contained no code of conduct acknowledgment, was not later adopted by its authors, did not establish the expertise of one stated author or identify responsibility for opinions, was expressly preliminary and for the sole use of the client, contained disclaimers inconsistent with reliance by the Court, lacked adequate evidence about sampling and handling, and no adequate explanation was given for the absence of a compliant expert report or later evidence from the authors.

Court Disposition

The defendant's objection was upheld and the 29 July 2011 report was not admitted in evidence.

Orders

  • ['The 29 July 2011 report is not admitted in evidence in these proceedings.']