Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1)

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.