Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 20)

In Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 20), the parties were Chaina, the Plaintiff, and the Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust, the Defendant. The dispute pertained to a claim for damages for personal injuries and psychological harm suffered by the Plaintiff following a fall on a wet floor at a property owned by the Defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of expert evidence provided by the Plaintiff in reply to the Defendant's evidence. The Defendant objected to the Plaintiff's expert evidence on the grounds that the report was served late and without explanation, and that the Plaintiff had not disclosed the expert's opinion in a timely manner. The Defendant argued that the late service of the report prejudiced their ability to prepare a proper defence and that the Plaintiff had an obligation to provide expert evidence in a timely fashion. The court was required to determine whether the late service of the report should result in the evidence being excluded.

The court found that the late service of the report by the Plaintiff did not, in itself, warrant the exclusion of the evidence. The court acknowledged that the Plaintiff had other reports in reply to the same evidence, which the Defendant had not objected to, and that the Defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the late service of the report. The court held that the Plaintiff's failure to provide a timely explanation for the delay in serving the report was not sufficient grounds to exclude the evidence. The court concluded that the Plaintiff's expert evidence should be admitted, but that the Plaintiff would be subject to a penalty for the late service of the report.

The court ordered that the Plaintiff's expert evidence be admitted, but that the Plaintiff would be liable for the costs associated with the late service of the report, including the costs incurred by the Defendant in preparing to respond to the late evidence. The court also ordered that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs of the application to exclude the evidence.