Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 15) [2018] NSWSC 1019

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 15) [2018] NSWSC 1019

The post-January 2011 PRA 2013 and URS 2014 material was not admissible to assess breach because the reasonableness of the flood engineers' conduct and beliefs in January 2011 had to be assessed prospectively by reference to matters known, or reasonably knowable, at the time, not by later studies. The precautionary releases opinion was rejected because the report did not contain substantive reasoning showing that Mr Dann's conclusions about the Manual were wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Objections to Tender of Expert Report and Related Reports
Outcome
The first and third objections to parts of Mr Dann's report were upheld; the second objection was not upheld.
Legal Topics
['expert Report Admissibility' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'relevance' 'flood Engineer Duty of Care' 'dam Safety Risk Assessment' 'precautionary Releases']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'common Law'] ['expert Report Admissibility' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'relevance' 'flood Engineer Duty of Care' 'dam Safety Risk Assessment' 'precautionary Releases']

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 Rulings / Objections to Tender of Expert Report and Related Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of Mr Christopher Dann's expert report describing post-January 2011 risk assessments, including PRA 2013 and URS 2014, were admissible in relation to breach of duty." "Whether the whole of the remainder of Mr Dann's report should be rejected because material subject to the first objection could not be separated." "Whether parts of Mr Dann's report concerning whether precautionary releases were permissible under the Manual should be admitted as expert opinion evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The post-January 2011 PRA 2013 and URS 2014 material was not admissible to assess breach because the reasonableness of the flood engineers' conduct and beliefs in January 2011 had to be assessed prospectively by reference to matters known, or reasonably knowable, at the time, not by later studies. The precautionary releases opinion was rejected because the report did not contain substantive reasoning showing that Mr Dann's conclusions about the Manual were wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge.

Court Disposition

The first and third objections to parts of Mr Dann's report were upheld; the second objection was not upheld.

Orders

  • ['Parts of EXP.SEQ.003.0113 were rejected.' 'Tender of SEQ.004.036.7950, SEQ.004.036.8522 and SEQ.004.036.7520 was rejected.' "The objection to the passage in section 8.3 of Mr Dann's report concerning precautionary releases, and its equivalents elsewhere, was upheld."]