Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 20) [2019] NSWSC 287

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 20) [2019] NSWSC 287

Paragraphs 1 to 15 and 18 of Dr Altinakar's report were admitted because they merely stated his opinions in light of the corrected figures and timing for Mr Malone's hydrograph. Paragraphs 16 and 17 and Appendix A were rejected because, despite some force in the plaintiff's submissions, admitting the re-run analysis at the late stage of the proceedings would be inconsistent with the reasoning in Rodriguez (No 18) and Rodriguez (No 19), would revisit the plaintiff's forensic decision not to further prove immateriality of the flow differences, and finality required the matter to rest while addressing the unfairness identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Tender of Dr Altinakar's Report Dated 14 March 2019
Outcome
Paragraphs 1 to 15 and 18 of Dr Altinakar's report dated 14 March 2019 admitted; paragraphs 16 and 17, including Appendix A, rejected.
Legal Topics
['tender of Expert Report' 'late Evidence' 'expert Hydrological Modelling Evidence' 'forensic Decision' 'adjournment and Prejudice' 'finality']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['tender of Expert Report' 'late Evidence' 'expert Hydrological Modelling Evidence' 'forensic Decision' 'adjournment and Prejudice' 'finality']

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 / Ex Tempore Ruling on Tender of Dr Altinakar's Report Dated 14 March 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraphs 1 to 15 and 18 of Dr Altinakar's report dated 14 March 2019 should be admitted." "Whether paragraphs 16 and 17, including Appendix A, of Dr Altinakar's report dated 14 March 2019 should be rejected."]

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 1 to 15 and 18 of Dr Altinakar's report were admitted because they merely stated his opinions in light of the corrected figures and timing for Mr Malone's hydrograph. Paragraphs 16 and 17 and Appendix A were rejected because, despite some force in the plaintiff's submissions, admitting the re-run analysis at the late stage of the proceedings would be inconsistent with the reasoning in Rodriguez (No 18) and Rodriguez (No 19), would revisit the plaintiff's forensic decision not to further prove immateriality of the flow differences, and finality required the matter to rest while addressing the unfairness identified.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 1 to 15 and 18 of Dr Altinakar's report dated 14 March 2019 admitted; paragraphs 16 and 17, including Appendix A, rejected.

Orders

  • ["Paragraphs 1 to 15 and 18 of Dr Altinakar's report dated 14 March 2019 are admitted." 'Paragraphs 16 and 17, including Appendix A, are rejected.']