Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 11) [2018] NSWSC 368

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 11) [2018] NSWSC 368

Professor Schleiss' stated qualifications and experience in hydrology, hydraulics, water resource engineering, dam design, reservoir operations and flood management provided a sufficient basis to conclude that the challenged opinions were based on specialised knowledge. Although he was not a flood operations engineer, his expertise was sufficiently proximate to the subject matter to give the limited opinions in the report concerning precipitation forecasts, operation according to a manual or guidelines, and risks associated with operating Wivenhoe or Somerset Dams below full supply levels. The objection was therefore rejected and the affidavit and report were admitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Expert Evidence / Objection to Reading an Affidavit and Tendering an Expert Report
Outcome
Report admitted
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'specialised Knowledge' 'dam Operations Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'specialised Knowledge' 'dam Operations 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 Ruling on Expert Evidence / Objection to Reading an Affidavit and Tendering an Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the opinions in Professor Anton J Schleiss' report were wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge within Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79(1)." 'Whether Professor Schleiss had sufficient expertise to opine on accepted practice concerning use of precipitation forecasts to set operational or release strategies at multipurpose dams with flood mitigation functions.' 'Whether Professor Schleiss had sufficient expertise to respond to contentions about interpretation and application of the Manual of Operational Procedures for Flood Mitigation at Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam.' 'Whether Professor Schleiss had sufficient expertise to comment on whether Wivenhoe or Somerset Dams could be operated below full supply levels.']

Ratio Decidendi

Professor Schleiss' stated qualifications and experience in hydrology, hydraulics, water resource engineering, dam design, reservoir operations and flood management provided a sufficient basis to conclude that the challenged opinions were based on specialised knowledge. Although he was not a flood operations engineer, his expertise was sufficiently proximate to the subject matter to give the limited opinions in the report concerning precipitation forecasts, operation according to a manual or guidelines, and risks associated with operating Wivenhoe or Somerset Dams below full supply levels. The objection was therefore rejected and the affidavit and report were admitted.

Court Disposition

Report admitted

Orders

  • ["The reading of Professor Schleiss' affidavit and the tender of his report is allowed."]