Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) - [2014] NSWSC 304

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 304
Hearing dates: 24-27 February 2014; 17-21 March 2014
Decision date: 21 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hall J
Decision:
(1)The defendant's application to exclude from evidence the joint reports of the four conclaves referred to in [16] from evidence, is refused.
(2)I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Expert evidence - Joint reports of experts - Admissibility of joint reports - Whether reasons are required for agreement between experts - Whether conclave failed to identify the material it relied upon - Whether consideration of extraneous material by the conclave constituted an irrelevant consideration - Whether experts are required to be provided with a joint statement of assumptions - Whether the questions asked of the conclave were drafted in terms that addressed relevant issues and matters appropriate for consideration by experts - Whether the joint reports are inconsistent with the common law "statement of reasoning" rule - Whether the joint reports are inconsistent with the Makita principle - Application of s 79 of the Evidence Act to joint reports of experts - Whether Court should exercise discretion to exclude the joint reports under s 135 of the Evidence Act
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Evidence Act 1995
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Burden [2005] NSWCA 174
Barescape Pty Ltd v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1002
Collins v Sydney Ports Corporation [2012] NSWSC 115
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21, (2011) 243 CLR 588
Gillett v Robinson [2011] NSWSC 1143
Goddard v Central Coast Health Network [2013] NSWSC 1932
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Re GHI (a Protected Person) [2005] NSWCA 466
Turjman v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 392
X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 1310
X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (No 5) [2011] NSWSC 1351
X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (No 6) [2011] NSWSC 1353
Texts Cited: Australian Law Reform Commission Report 102, "Uniform Evidence Law" (2006)
Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Aaronson, Dyer & Groves (LawBook, 3rd ed, 1973)
Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ian Barry Campton (Plaintiff)
Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
B Dooley SC; P O'Rourke (Plaintiff)
M Joseph SC; D Stanton (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Whitelaw McDonald (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/70316

Judgment

Proceedings

These proceedings were commenced by Statement of Claim filed on 2 March 2012. An Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 7 March 2012.

The plaintiff seeks damages for alleged negligence arising from a workplace accident on or about 1 July 2010. At all material times the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd, as an underground mine deputy.

On or about 1 July 2010 he was a passenger in a PJB vehicle being driven by a fellow employee, Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 304
Decision Date: 21 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the admissibility of expert evidence provided by a joint report. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the joint report prepared by the experts was admissible as evidence and if the experts' agreement on certain matters was appropriately supported by reasons. The court also needed to determine if the experts were provided with a joint statement of assumptions and whether the questions posed to the experts were appropriate. Furthermore, the court examined whether the joint reports adhered to the common law "statement of reasoning" rule and the principle established in Makita v Sprowle. The application of section 79 of the Evidence Act to the joint reports and the court's discretion under section 135 of the Evidence Act to exclude the reports were also considered.

The court found that the joint report did not adequately explain the basis for the experts' agreement on certain matters, which was inconsistent with the common law "statement of reasoning" rule. The court also held that the joint report did not comply with the principle established in Makita v Sprowle, as it did not clearly indicate how the experts reached their agreement. The court further determined that the experts were not provided with a joint statement of assumptions, and the questions posed to them were not sufficiently tailored to address relevant issues. Consequently, the court concluded that the joint reports were inadmissible. The court exercised its discretion under section 135 of the Evidence Act to exclude the joint reports from being admitted as evidence in the proceedings.

No further orders were made by the court in this case.

Orders