Conias Hotels Pty Ltd v Murphy

In the matter of Conias Hotels Pty Ltd v Murphy, the plaintiff sought to have a further expert valuer appointed to provide an opinion on the valuation of the Transcontinental Hotel. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute between the parties centred around the valuation of the hotel as of 12 May 2008, with significant disagreement between the two appointed expert valuers.

The central legal issue was whether the Court should allow the plaintiff to call further expert evidence in light of the significant difference of opinion between the existing experts. The plaintiff argued that the appointment of a further expert valuer was necessary to resolve the substantial discrepancy between the valuations provided by the existing experts. The defendants opposed this application on the basis that the existing expert evidence was sufficient and that the appointment of a further expert would be wasteful and unjust.

The Court found that the appointment of a further expert valuer was warranted given the significant disparity in the opinions of the existing experts. The Court held that the application of rule 429N(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 was appropriate in these circumstances. The Court ordered that Mr Gavin Duthie be appointed as the additional expert, with a series of steps to be followed for the preparation and submission of reports, including joint expert conferences and the production of joint reports.

The Court made orders for the appointment of Mr Duthie as an expert valuer, the timelines for the preparation of reports, the sharing of reports among the parties, and the payment of costs associated with the process. The costs of the application and appearance were reserved.