Hannaford v Farquhar [2022] NSWSC 667

Hannaford v Farquhar [2022] NSWSC 667

Leave was refused because the notice of motion was very late, the delay was not explained, the proceedings had been on foot for five years, service of evidence had been ordered to be finalised 12 months earlier, and the proposed expert reports did not correlate to any pleaded allegation of loss or damage and were irrelevant to the case pleaded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceedings Concerning Alleged Negligent Advice by Solicitors / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to Serve and Rely Upon Two Expert Valuation Reports Shortly Before Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['late Application to Rely on Expert Evidence' 'relevance of Expert Reports to Pleaded Case' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs of Notice of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'evidence'] ['late Application to Rely on Expert Evidence' 'relevance of Expert Reports to Pleaded Case' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs of Notice of Motion']

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

Professional Negligence Proceedings Concerning Alleged Negligent Advice by Solicitors / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to Serve and Rely Upon Two Expert Valuation Reports Shortly Before Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to serve and rely upon two reports of a property valuer dated September 2021 and April 2022.' 'Whether the proposed expert reports were relevant to any pleaded allegation of loss or damage.' 'Whether the unexplained delay and proximity of the hearing date justified refusal of leave under the overriding purpose.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the notice of motion was very late, the delay was not explained, the proceedings had been on foot for five years, service of evidence had been ordered to be finalised 12 months earlier, and the proposed expert reports did not correlate to any pleaded allegation of loss or damage and were irrelevant to the case pleaded.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 22 April 2022 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's cost of the Notice of Motion."]