Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 1118

Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 1118

The defendants’ late-served expert reports were not in reply but raised additional issues distinct from those previously in contention. No exceptional circumstances were established to justify the admission of the reports under UCPR 31.28. The court, in the interests of proper case management and to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs, refused leave for the defendants to rely on the reports.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Within Proceedings / Interlocutory (pre Trial) Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Defendants not permitted to rely upon the reports of Mr Woods or Mr Hehir. Defendants to pay the costs of this application forthwith on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['evidence—expert Reports' 'case Management—compliance With Court Orders' 'admissibility of Late Evidence']
['civil Procedure'] ['evidence—expert Reports' 'case Management—compliance With Court Orders' 'admissibility of Late Evidence']

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

Application Within Proceedings / Interlocutory (pre Trial) Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendants should be permitted to rely upon late-served expert reports of Mr Woods and Mr Hehir' 'Whether the reports are in reply or raise new issues outside the scope of prior evidence' 'Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying leave to rely on the reports under UCPR 31.28']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants’ late-served expert reports were not in reply but raised additional issues distinct from those previously in contention. No exceptional circumstances were established to justify the admission of the reports under UCPR 31.28. The court, in the interests of proper case management and to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs, refused leave for the defendants to rely on the reports.

Court Disposition

Defendants not permitted to rely upon the reports of Mr Woods or Mr Hehir. Defendants to pay the costs of this application forthwith on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['The defendants are not permitted to rely upon the reports of Mr Woods or Mr Hehir.' 'The defendants to pay the costs of this application forthwith on the ordinary basis.']