Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 19) [2019] NSWSC 262

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 19) [2019] NSWSC 262

The reports of Dr Toombes and Dr Markar were rejected because, although in a broad sense responsive to Dr Altinakar's further reports, they raised matters that could and should have been raised in response to his October 2017 reports, or went beyond the limited issue he was permitted to address, including materiality and new criticisms. Allowing the reports would permit Seqwater and SunWater to revisit deliberate forensic decisions not to adduce responsive expert evidence, would likely entitle the plaintiff to a further substantive response including renewed modelling, and would cause significant delay, costs and use of Court time. There was no relevant change in circumstances and no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Ruling Concerning Tender of Further Expert Reports / Application by the First and Second Defendants to Tender Expert Reports in Response to Further Reports From Dr Altinakar After Leave Granted to the Plaintiff to Re Open
Outcome
Tender of both expert reports rejected; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['re Opening' 'tender of Expert Reports' 'responsive Evidence' 'forensic Decisions' 'finality in Litigation' 'natural Justice']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['re Opening' 'tender of Expert Reports' 'responsive Evidence' 'forensic Decisions' 'finality in Litigation' 'natural Justice']

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

Civil Procedure Ruling Concerning Tender of Further Expert Reports / Application by the First and Second Defendants to Tender Expert Reports in Response to Further Reports From Dr Altinakar After Leave Granted to the Plaintiff to Re Open

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant and second defendant should be permitted to tender the reports of Dr Luke Toombes dated 15 February 2019 and Dr Sharmil Markar dated 21 February 2019.' "Whether the limited leave granted in Rodriguez (No 18) to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence from Dr Altinakar allowed Seqwater and SunWater to revisit earlier decisions not to serve evidence in response to Dr Altinakar's October 2017 reports and modelling." "Whether rejecting the defendants' proposed responsive expert reports would deny natural justice."]

Ratio Decidendi

The reports of Dr Toombes and Dr Markar were rejected because, although in a broad sense responsive to Dr Altinakar's further reports, they raised matters that could and should have been raised in response to his October 2017 reports, or went beyond the limited issue he was permitted to address, including materiality and new criticisms. Allowing the reports would permit Seqwater and SunWater to revisit deliberate forensic decisions not to adduce responsive expert evidence, would likely entitle the plaintiff to a further substantive response including renewed modelling, and would cause significant delay, costs and use of Court time. There was no relevant change in circumstances and no...

Court Disposition

Tender of both expert reports rejected; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Tender of report of Dr Luke Toombes dated 15 February 2019 rejected.' 'Tender of report of Dr Sharmil Markar dated 21 February 2019 rejected.' 'Costs of the application to tender the reports be reserved.']