Aitkenhead v Kaufline (No 2)

Aitkenhead v Kaufline (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties, focusing on the admissibility of expert evidence provided by the respondents. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, with Justice Ainley presiding over the proceedings. The main issue at hand was whether the failure of the solicitor to provide a copy of the expert witness code of conduct complied with the rules governing the provision of expert evidence. The court was required to determine whether the obligations under the New South Wales expert witness code of conduct and the Australian Capital Territory expert witness code of conduct were substantially equivalent, and if the requirements of rule 1203 could be dispensed with.

The court examined the obligations of experts under the respective codes of conduct and found that they were substantially equivalent. It was noted that the experts had indicated their compliance with the New South Wales expert witness code of conduct in the body of their reports. Given the similarity between the codes, the court concluded that the requirements of rule 1203 could be dispensed with. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the obligations were substantially equivalent, and the failure to provide a copy of the code did not significantly affect the admissibility of the evidence.

In light of the above findings, the court dispensed with the requirements of rule 1203(1) and (2) in relation to the reports of the experts. The final orders made under rule 6 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 allowed the expert evidence to be admitted despite the solicitor's failure to provide a copy of the expert witness code of conduct. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the obligations of experts under the relevant codes of conduct and highlights the court's willingness to consider the substantial equivalence of obligations when making decisions on the admissibility of expert evidence.