Corporation of the Trustees of the Order of the Sisters of Mercy in Queensland v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2006] QSC 305
•27/09/2006
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Corporation of the Trustees of the Order of the Sisters of Mercy in Queensland v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2006] QSC 305
[2006] QSC 305
27/09/2006
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involves a dispute among the Corporation of the Trustees of the Order of the Sisters of Mercy in Queensland, Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited, Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd, A.W. Baulderstone Holdings Pty Ltd, and Phillips Smith Conwell Architects Pty Ltd regarding tiling defects at the Stanley Street Children's Hospital. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland under the Civil Jurisdiction. The applicants sought to have joint experts appointed to investigate the tiling defects and provide a report on the cause of the defects and potential rectification methods.
The legal issues before the court included the appointment of joint experts under rule 429S of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the scope of their report, and the potential requirement for the experts to address discrepancies with existing reports. The third respondent, represented by Ms Klease, argued for a provision in the order that would require the joint experts to detail and explain any disagreements with the extant reports. The other parties opposed this, citing potential additional costs and the likelihood of the exercise not being helpful.
The court acknowledged the third respondent's concern and agreed that the joint experts should address discrepancies with existing reports if required, but decided against imposing a blanket direction for this at the initial stage. Instead, the court reserved the liberty to apply for such a direction if necessary. The court also ordered the appointment of Mr Peter Hartog and Dr Ron Blackwell as joint experts to investigate and report on the tiling defects, including their causes and possible rectifications. The court outlined the process for preparing the brief for the experts, the inspection of the defects, and the allocation of costs among the parties.
The legal issues before the court included the appointment of joint experts under rule 429S of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the scope of their report, and the potential requirement for the experts to address discrepancies with existing reports. The third respondent, represented by Ms Klease, argued for a provision in the order that would require the joint experts to detail and explain any disagreements with the extant reports. The other parties opposed this, citing potential additional costs and the likelihood of the exercise not being helpful.
The court acknowledged the third respondent's concern and agreed that the joint experts should address discrepancies with existing reports if required, but decided against imposing a blanket direction for this at the initial stage. Instead, the court reserved the liberty to apply for such a direction if necessary. The court also ordered the appointment of Mr Peter Hartog and Dr Ron Blackwell as joint experts to investigate and report on the tiling defects, including their causes and possible rectifications. The court outlined the process for preparing the brief for the experts, the inspection of the defects, and the allocation of costs among the parties.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Expert Evidence
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0