Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 13)

The parties involved in this case are Chaina, the plaintiff, and the Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust, the defendant. The dispute revolves around the admissibility of expert reports in an early determination proceeding. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Chaina, sought to rely on expert reports in a proceeding under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules aimed at an early determination of issues. The defendant challenged the admissibility of these reports, arguing that they were based on assumptions provided to the experts that were not supported by any factual material.

The court had to decide whether the expert reports could be admitted into evidence. Specifically, it needed to determine if the assumptions given to the experts were sufficiently substantiated by factual material and if the reports were reliable and admissible under the rules governing expert evidence. The court considered the principles set out in *Expert Evidence: The New Law in Australia*, which emphasise the importance of factual underpinnings for expert assumptions. It also examined the relevant provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules that govern early determination proceedings.

The court found that the assumptions given to the experts were not supported by any factual material, which rendered the expert reports unreliable and inadmissible. The court held that for expert reports to be admissible, the assumptions on which they are based must be substantiated by factual material. Without such substantiation, the assumptions are speculative, and the reports cannot be considered reliable. The court concluded that the expert reports could not be admitted in the early determination proceeding. Consequently, the plaintiff's reliance on these reports was unsuccessful.

The court ordered that the expert reports were inadmissible and could not be used as evidence in the proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of factual substantiation for expert assumptions in legal proceedings. The court's ruling highlights the necessity for experts to base their opinions on factual material to ensure the reliability and admissibility of their reports.