Wu v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 587

Wu v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 587

Because the impact of the restriction on the value of the unit was a central issue, and the plaintiffs produced evidence indicating that reputable contrary expert opinion may be available, the plaintiffs would have a legitimate sense of grievance if that issue were effectively determined by the single expert alone. The appropriate course was to permit each party to obtain and serve a separate expert valuer's report, while reserving until later the question whether competing expert evidence may be adduced at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Equity Division Duty Judge List Concerning Expert Evidence / Plaintiffs' Application Under UCPR R 31.44 for Leave to Rely Upon Evidence of an Expert Valuer in Addition to the Parties' Single Expert
Outcome
Plaintiffs permitted to obtain and serve a separate expert valuer's report, with leave to adduce the report reserved for later consideration; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'single Expert' 'leave to Obtain Separate Expert Report' 'valuation Evidence' 'detrimental Affectation of Property']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['expert Evidence' 'single Expert' 'leave to Obtain Separate Expert Report' 'valuation Evidence' 'detrimental Affectation of Property']

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 Ruling in Equity Division Duty Judge List Concerning Expert Evidence / Plaintiffs' Application Under UCPR R 31.44 for Leave to Rely Upon Evidence of an Expert Valuer in Addition to the Parties' Single Expert

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to obtain and serve a separate expert valuer's report in addition to the report of the parties' single expert appointed under UCPR r 31.37." 'Whether leave to adduce competing expert evidence at trial should be determined immediately or reserved until after separate reports and possible expert conference.' 'Whether costs consequences should be reserved because of extra costs incurred by additional experts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the impact of the restriction on the value of the unit was a central issue, and the plaintiffs produced evidence indicating that reputable contrary expert opinion may be available, the plaintiffs would have a legitimate sense of grievance if that issue were effectively determined by the single expert alone. The appropriate course was to permit each party to obtain and serve a separate expert valuer's report, while reserving until later the question whether competing expert evidence may be adduced at trial.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs permitted to obtain and serve a separate expert valuer's report, with leave to adduce the report reserved for later consideration; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ["Each party may by 8 July 2009 serve the report of an expert valuer addressing the questions on which the party's single expert was asked to opine." 'The proceedings are adjourned to 10 July 2009 at 9.30am before Brereton J for further directions.' "The defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion." 'The...