Hubbard v CPB Contractors Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 1921

The report of David Cockbain is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the requirements for expert opinion evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), is largely based on assumptions rather than specialised knowledge, and its opinions on preventability and foreseeability are not relevant or probative of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Plaintiff: Stephen John Hubbard; Defendant: CPB Contractors Pty Limited
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 08 December 2020
Procedural Posture: Damages Claim (personal Injury Negligence) / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome: Expert report rejected as inadmissible
Legal Topics: Opinion Evidence, Expert Reports, Admissibility, Negligence, Occupier's Liability

Evidence Torts Opinion Evidence Expert Reports Admissibility Negligence Occupier's Liability

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Stephen John Hubbard

Plaintiff

CPB Contractors Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Damages Claim (personal Injury Negligence) / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

1 Whether the expert report of David Cockbain dated 22 May 2015 is admissible as expert opinion evidence
2 Whether the report satisfies the requirements of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
3 Whether the contents of the report are relevant to facts in issue

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Expert report rejected as inadmissible

Orders

The tender of the report of David Cockbain dated 22 May 2015 is rejected.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.