UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 4) [2019] NSWLEC 51

UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 4) [2019] NSWLEC 51

The Watts report was rejected as evidence because it did not meet the minimum standards for admission as an expert report under the UCPR and Expert Code: specifically, it failed to clearly identify facts and assumptions, elucidate reasoning, provide supporting materials, contained unsupported and scandalous allegations, and demonstrated lack of impartiality and independence. Its probative value was considered so low as to be nugatory and its admission would be unfairly prejudicial to the respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Compulsory Acquisition Proceedings / Procedural (exclusion of Expert Report in Voir Dire)
Outcome
Expert report rejected and not admitted as evidence
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Witness Impartiality' 'application of the Expert Witness Code' 'compliance With Uniform Civil Procedure Rules']
['evidence' 'compulsory Acquisition' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Witness Impartiality' 'application of the Expert Witness Code' 'compliance With Uniform Civil Procedure Rules']

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

Compulsory Acquisition Proceedings / Procedural (exclusion of Expert Report in Voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Watts expert accounting report should be admitted into evidence in Class 3 proceedings where rules of evidence do not apply' 'Whether the report complies with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 31.23, 31.27 and Sch 7' 'Whether the report provides adequate reasoning and foundation for opinions and conclusions' 'The impact of partiality and prior involvement on admissibility']

Ratio Decidendi

The Watts report was rejected as evidence because it did not meet the minimum standards for admission as an expert report under the UCPR and Expert Code: specifically, it failed to clearly identify facts and assumptions, elucidate reasoning, provide supporting materials, contained unsupported and scandalous allegations, and demonstrated lack of impartiality and independence. Its probative value was considered so low as to be nugatory and its admission would be unfairly prejudicial to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Expert report rejected and not admitted as evidence

Orders

  • ['The expert report of Mr Gambhir Watts OAM CPA dated 28 November 2018 is rejected.' 'Exhibits on the voir dire are returnable upon publication of this judgment.']