Luigi Iacullo v Remly Pty Limited ACN 106 966 278 [2015] NSWSC 2093

Luigi Iacullo v Remly Pty Limited ACN 106 966 278 [2015] NSWSC 2093

Leave was refused because the Court was unconvinced that separate project management expert evidence was necessary, given that quantity surveyors had expressed opinions on the project management fees; the report was not available; directions under r 31.19 had not been sought promptly despite the matter being known...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence / Before Final Hearing Commencing on 6 October 2015
Outcome
Leave to adduce further expert evidence denied.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'project Management Expert Evidence' 'quantity Surveyor Expert Evidence' 'extension of Time' 'expert Conclave and Joint Report']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'project Management Expert Evidence' 'quantity Surveyor Expert Evidence' 'extension of Time' 'expert Conclave and Joint Report']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling on Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence / Before Final Hearing Commencing on 6 October 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-defendants should be granted leave to adduce expert evidence in project management, a field not previously the subject of expert evidence directions.' 'Whether the proposed project management evidence was necessary where quantity surveyor experts had addressed project management fees.' 'Whether further time and a new field of expert evidence should be permitted shortly before the final hearing when directions had not been sought earlier under r 31.19.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Court was unconvinced that separate project management expert evidence was necessary, given that quantity surveyors had expressed opinions on the project management fees; the report was not available; directions under r 31.19 had not been sought promptly despite the matter being known since late June; and the final hearing was imminent, with insufficient grounds to allow a further extension of time and a further field of expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to adduce further expert evidence denied.

Orders

  • ["Time for service of the third to eighth cross-defendants' affidavit of Michael Murr sworn 31 July 2015 be extended nunc pro tunc until 31 July 2015." "Time for service of the cross-claimants' lay evidence in reply be extended to 31 August 2015." "Time for service of the cross-claimants' quantity surveyor expert...