Commonwealth Bank v iInvest (No 7)

The matter of Commonwealth Bank v iInvest (No 7) arose before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute concerns the admissibility of an expert report annexed to an affidavit filed by the cross-claimants, iInvest, in the context of a broader litigation involving financial transactions and assessments. The court was tasked with determining whether the cross-claimants should be granted leave to read the affidavit annexing the expert report, particularly in light of a guillotine order that had been made earlier in the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the change of a legal advisor constituted an exceptional circumstance under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rule 31.28(4); and second, whether the opinions expressed by the expert were wholly or substantially based upon the expert's branch of specialised knowledge, specifically in the areas of chartered accountancy and expert valuation. The court had to evaluate the arguments presented by both parties to determine if the cross-claimants could rely on the expert report despite the guillotine order and the change of legal representation.

The court deliberated on the interpretation and application of rule 31.28(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), which allows for leave to file further material in exceptional circumstances. The court found that while a change in legal advisor is not, in and of itself, an exceptional circumstance. However, the court also considered the substance of the expert's report and whether it was based on the specialised knowledge pertinent to the case. The court concluded that the cross-claimants had not established the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting leave to file the affidavit annexing the expert report. The court's reasoning was grounded in the procedural rules and the specific facts of the case, particularly the nature of the expert's opinions and their relevance to the litigation.

As a result of the court's determination, the cross-claimants were not granted leave to read the affidavit annexing the expert report. The court's decision was based on the absence of exceptional circumstances and the inadmissibility of the expert's opinions under the prevailing procedural rules and the guillotine order. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural mandates and the stringent criteria required to establish exceptional circumstances in litigation.