Barescape Pty Ltd atf the Vs Family Trust v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd atf the Bacchus Holdings Trust

Barescape Pty Ltd, acting through the Barescape Family Trust, filed a lawsuit against Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd, represented by the Bacchus Holdings Trust. The dispute revolves around the admissibility of a joint experts' report prepared by two engineering experts. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought to rely on the experts' report in their case, while the defendants argued that the report should be excluded due to non-compliance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the Evidence Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rule 31.26 mandates the admission of a joint experts' report where one of the parties fails to object to it. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the exclusion of the report was warranted due to the experts' failure to disclose their reasoning process and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial under section 135 of the Evidence Act. The defendants argued that the report was deficient in explaining the reasoning process, which is a critical component for the court to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence.

The court found that rule 31.26 does not automatically require the admission of a joint experts' report if one party fails to object to it. However, the court emphasised the importance of the reasoning process in an experts' report, especially in complex engineering cases. The court held that the failure to disclose the reasoning process could lead to the exclusion of the report under section 135 of the Evidence Act if it would be unfair to admit the report without understanding the basis for the experts' conclusions. Ultimately, the court decided to exclude the joint experts' report due to the deficiencies in the reasoning process, finding it would be unjust to admit the report without clarity on the experts' reasoning.

The court ordered that the joint experts' report be excluded from evidence in the proceedings. The matter was returned to the parties for further discovery and potentially for the experts to provide a revised report that adequately explains the reasoning process. The final orders reflected the court's decision to exclude the joint experts' report and directed the parties to proceed with further discovery to address the deficiencies in the evidence.