Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 12) [2018] NSWSC 415

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 12) [2018] NSWSC 415

Mr Kane's report was generally admissible because, except for identified passages, his opinions concerned matters within hydrometeorological expertise: the quality, reliability and utility of rainfall forecasts and the flood engineers' general approach to using such forecasts in flood forecasting and operational...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Objection to Tender of Expert Report / Hearing of Defendants' Objections to Portions of Plaintiff's Tender of Mr Michael Kane's Report
Outcome
Report admitted in part, with specified passages treated as assumptions or rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Report' 'hydrometeorologist Expertise' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 79(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135' 'relevance and Pleaded Case' 'flood Forecasting and Dam Operations']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Report' 'hydrometeorologist Expertise' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 79(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135' 'relevance and Pleaded Case' 'flood Forecasting and Dam Operations']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling on Objection to Tender of Expert Report / Hearing of Defendants' Objections to Portions of Plaintiff's Tender of Mr Michael Kane's Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Kane's opinions about the conduct or approach of flood engineers in conducting dam operations in early 2011 were wholly or substantially based on his training, study or experience under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79(1)." "Whether Mr Kane's opinions and analysis in section 5.3 of his report were inconsistent with the plaintiff's pleaded case, lacked relevance, or should be excluded under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 135." "Whether paragraphs 65 to 72 concerning the Real-Time Flood Model should be rejected or treated only as an assumption because the basis for Mr Kane's understanding was not stated." "Whether particular opinions about the necessity for flood engineers to make releases were beyond Mr Kane's demonstrated expertise."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kane's report was generally admissible because, except for identified passages, his opinions concerned matters within hydrometeorological expertise: the quality, reliability and utility of rainfall forecasts and the flood engineers' general approach to using such forecasts in flood forecasting and operational decision-making. He did not purport to state an overall methodology for dam operations or specify the operational decisions that should have been made. His evidence was relevant to issues in the proceedings concerning whether the flood engineers were justified in making operational decisions based only on observed rainfall and what forecasts should have been used. However,...

Court Disposition

Report admitted in part, with specified passages treated as assumptions or rejected.

Orders

  • ['Report of Michael Kane dated 13 January 2017 admitted into evidence.' 'Paragraphs 65 to 74 are to be treated as an assumption.' 'The last two sentences of paragraph 164, the last sentence of paragraph 173 and the last sentence of paragraph 174 are rejected.']