Beslic v MLC Ltd

The plaintiff sought an advance ruling on the admissibility of expert evidence that they intended to rely on in proceedings against the first and second defendants. The first defendant opposed the application, but the second defendant did not. The plaintiff sought an order under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) that the evidence be admitted. The second defendant also sought leave to file a further expert report. The Court had to decide whether it was appropriate to make the ruling before the hearing of the application to sustain the ruling. The Court noted that the plaintiff had not precisely and informatively identified the rulings sought, and the second defendant had not filed a report. The Court found that it was premature to rule on the appropriateness of the ruling as the second defendant could still remedy the shortcomings of its expert evidence, and the plaintiff's application was not sufficiently specific.

The Court considered the discretion of the judge in determining the appropriateness of the ruling, which fell within the circumstances of the case. The Court found that the plaintiff's application did not meet the threshold for an advance ruling, as it was not sufficiently specific and the second defendant could still remedy the shortcomings of its expert evidence. The Court also noted that the second defendant had not filed a report, and it was premature to rule on the appropriateness of the ruling. The Court found that it was appropriate to give the ruling before embarking upon the hearing of the application to sustain the ruling, but the plaintiff's application did not meet the threshold for an advance ruling.