Hudson v Howes & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1503

Hudson v Howes & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1503

Questions seeking expert opinions about what occurred at Moruya on 19 January 2004 could not properly be put to the joint expert conference unless the plaintiff first clearly and succinctly identified the assumptions of fact on which the experts were to proceed. Questions framed by reference to witness statements or unspecified knowledge of facts would require experts to make their own unstated findings of fact, contrary to the principles governing expert opinion evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling / On the Papers; Directions Concerning Assumptions of Fact and Questions for a Joint Conference of Liability Experts
Outcome
Plaintiff's list of questions are to be amended as specified, and a list of factual assumptions is to be included.
Legal Topics
['expert Witnesses' 'conference of Expert Witnesses Before Trial' 'assumptions of Fact for Expert Opinion' 'questions to Be Put to Expert Witnesses' 'expert Opinion Evidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Witnesses' 'conference of Expert Witnesses Before Trial' 'assumptions of Fact for Expert Opinion' 'questions to Be Put to Expert Witnesses' 'expert Opinion Evidence']

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 / On the Papers; Directions Concerning Assumptions of Fact and Questions for a Joint Conference of Liability Experts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What assumptions of fact should be put to liability experts at a joint expert conference.' "Whether the plaintiff's proposed questions to the liability experts could be put without clearly stated assumptions of fact." 'Whether expert witnesses may be asked to express opinions based on witness statements or evidence without identifying the assumed facts on which the opinions are based.']

Ratio Decidendi

Questions seeking expert opinions about what occurred at Moruya on 19 January 2004 could not properly be put to the joint expert conference unless the plaintiff first clearly and succinctly identified the assumptions of fact on which the experts were to proceed. Questions framed by reference to witness statements or unspecified knowledge of facts would require experts to make their own unstated findings of fact, contrary to the principles governing expert opinion evidence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's list of questions are to be amended as specified, and a list of factual assumptions is to be included.

Orders

  • ["The list of questions contained in Part B of the Plaintiff's Brief for Liability Experts are to be submitted to the joint conference for an expression of opinion by both of the experts providing that the plaintiff sets forward under Part A, with precision, the assumptions of fact which each of the experts are to...