BrisConnections Finance Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Arup Pty Limited

The case of BrisConnections Finance Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Arup Pty Limited dealt with the admissibility of a 'joint' expert report and the expert evidence provided during a voir dire. The parties were in dispute over the traffic forecasting evidence submitted by Arup. The court had to decide whether the joint expert report and the evidence from the voir dire could be admitted as evidence of one expert. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether a 'revised' report of the expert should be accepted.

The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the joint expert report and the process through which it was prepared. The court held that the joint report could be admitted as evidence of one expert, despite being prepared by two authors, because the primary author, Mr Veitch, held all the opinions genuinely and independently. The court found that Mr Veitch's son was more accurately described as a co-writer rather than merely an assistant. The court also considered the instruction letter and the process of preparing the report, concluding that Mr Veitch's opinions were not compromised by the joint authorship. The court rejected the 'revised' report of the expert, finding it to be less accurate in describing the contribution of Mr Veitch's son.

The court's final orders rejected the tendered 'revised' report of Mr Michael Veitch, admitted the original expert report and the addendum, and also admitted the affidavit of Mr Veitch and the evidence from the voir dire. These orders reflected the court's findings on the admissibility of the evidence and the nature of the expert's opinions.