Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 262

Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 262

Most of the applicants' objections to the Lunney report were rejected because the alleged shortcomings in valuation expert evidence should generally be dealt with by expert conferencing, concurrent evidence, cross-examination, and the Court's later assessment of relevance and weight; an extreme application of the basis rule would undermine the practical operation of those procedures. However, several specific statements in the report were excluded, including material the Court considered Mr Lunney was not in a position to give.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Tender and Admissibility of the Respondent's Expert Valuation Report
Outcome
Tender allowed, subject to relevance, and with specified deletions.
Legal Topics
['expert Valuation Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'objections to Expert Evidence' 'basis Rule' 'joint Expert Reports']
['evidence' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['expert Valuation Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'objections to Expert Evidence' 'basis Rule' 'joint Expert Reports']

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

Class 3 Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Tender and Admissibility of the Respondent's Expert Valuation Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's expert valuation report by Mr Lunney should be admitted despite the applicants' objections." "Whether particular statements in Mr Lunney's report should be excluded or deleted."]

Ratio Decidendi

Most of the applicants' objections to the Lunney report were rejected because the alleged shortcomings in valuation expert evidence should generally be dealt with by expert conferencing, concurrent evidence, cross-examination, and the Court's later assessment of relevance and weight; an extreme application of the basis rule would undermine the practical operation of those procedures. However, several specific statements in the report were excluded, including material the Court considered Mr Lunney was not in a position to give.

Court Disposition

Tender allowed, subject to relevance, and with specified deletions.

Orders

  • ['The Lunney report was admitted as Exhibit R3, subject to relevance.' "On page 21 paragraph 6.3.7, the words from 'however' on the second line to the end of that sentence were not accepted." "On page 28 paragraph 6.5.1, the sentence commencing 'I also note' and continuing with the statement about Mr Kordek...