Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 149

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 149

Simulations based on earlier inflow estimates, which are now disavowed by the expert in favour of revised methodology, are of minimal probative value and carry a real risk of being misleading and causing undue waste of time. They do not represent the expert's current opinion and should be excluded under s 135 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Plaintiff: Rodriguez & Sons Pty Limited; First Defendant: Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater; Second Defendant: SunWater Limited; Third Defendant: State of Queensland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Decision on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Tender of simulations rejected
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Relevance, Exclusion of Evidence, Simulations, Probative Value
Evidence Expert Evidence Relevance Exclusion of Evidence Simulations Probative Value

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater

First Defendant

SunWater Limited

Second Defendant

State of Queensland

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Decision on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether simulations in expert's report are admissible given expert now disavows underlying inflow data
  2. 2 Whether tender of such simulations is relevant and of sufficient probative value
  3. 3 Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 135 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Simulations based on earlier inflow estimates, which are now disavowed by the expert in favour of revised methodology, are of minimal probative value and carry a real risk of being misleading and causing undue waste of time. They do not represent the expert's current opinion and should be excluded under s 135 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Tender of simulations rejected

Orders

  • The 6, 7 and 9 January simulations in Dr Christensen's February 2015 report are not admitted.
  • The simulation assuming a fuse plug breach in the same report is not admitted.