Wilson v SAS Trustee Corporation (No 3) [2021] NSWDC 841

Wilson v SAS Trustee Corporation (No 3) [2021] NSWDC 841

Special circumstances existed to permit the Defendant to rely on and tender Dr Allan's reports served out of time because the Plaintiff had not complied with the Court's timetable or the Defendant's agreed extension, gave notice requiring Dr Allan for cross-examination only on the first hearing day, and the objections raised went to weight rather than admissibility; refusal would likely prompt an adjournment and further delay in a matter with a long procedural history.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedural Ruling / Defendant's Application Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 31.28(4)(a) to Tender Two Expert Reports During the Hearing
Outcome
The Defendant's application was granted; the two reports of Dr Allan were admitted.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'tender of Expert Reports' 'late Service of Expert Reports' 'special Circumstances' 'cross Examination of Expert Witness']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'tender of Expert Reports' 'late Service of Expert Reports' 'special Circumstances' 'cross Examination of Expert Witness']

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 Procedural Ruling / Defendant's Application Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 31.28(4)(a) to Tender Two Expert Reports During the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendant should be permitted under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 31.28(4)(a) to tender two reports of Dr Martin Allan served out of time.' "Whether the Plaintiff's objections to Dr Allan's reports, including that he had not examined or interviewed the Plaintiff and alleged deficiencies in reasoning, prevented their admission."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances existed to permit the Defendant to rely on and tender Dr Allan's reports served out of time because the Plaintiff had not complied with the Court's timetable or the Defendant's agreed extension, gave notice requiring Dr Allan for cross-examination only on the first hearing day, and the objections raised went to weight rather than admissibility; refusal would likely prompt an adjournment and further delay in a matter with a long procedural history.

Court Disposition

The Defendant's application was granted; the two reports of Dr Allan were admitted.

Orders

  • ['I admit the two reports of Dr Allan.' 'They will become Exhibit 4.']