Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 21) [2019] NSWSC 294

Cross-examination by defendants squarely raised or renewed issues regarding the materiality and significance of the disputed flow figures at Rifle Range Road, making it necessary under s 39(a) of the Evidence Act for the plaintiff to re-examine and tender the contested paragraphs, to avoid leaving an incomplete or misleading evidentiary record.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 20 March 2019
Procedural Posture: Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility During Trial
Outcome: Application to tender paragraphs 16 and 17 of Dr Altinakar's report during re-examination allowed.
Legal Topics: ['admissibility of Evidence' 're Examination of Witnesses' 'expert Evidence' 'scope of Cross Examination']

['evidence Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 're Examination of Witnesses' 'expert Evidence' 'scope of Cross Examination']

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

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility During Trial

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether plaintiff may tender previously excluded paragraphs from expert report during re-examination after cross-examination opens up the issues.' "Whether cross-examination raised the 'materiality' of flow inputs to the expert model such that the previously rejected evidence is now admissible under s 39(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to tender paragraphs 16 and 17 of Dr Altinakar's report during re-examination allowed.

Orders

['Tender of paragraphs [16] and [17] in EXP.ROD.021.001 during re-examination of Dr Altinakar allowed.']