Disley v Mount Emerald Wind Farm Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Disley v Mount Emerald Wind Farm Pty Ltd (No 2), the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Disley, contested a claim related to alleged nuisance and damage caused by the defendants' wind farm operations. The defendants, Mount Emerald Wind Farm Pty Ltd, applied for procedural orders concerning the scope and content of the plaintiffs' expert evidence. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs could only call one expert witness in respect of particular issues and sought orders precluding the plaintiffs from calling more than one expert witness. They further contended that if the plaintiffs proceeded with more than one expert witness, they should revise their expert reports to address separate issues.

The court needed to decide whether the defendants' discretion to manage the scope of expert evidence was properly exercised, and whether the revised expert reports complied with the orders. The court held that the orders for the plaintiffs to revise their expert reports to address separate issues were appropriate, as they aligned with the procedural fairness and efficiency in managing expert evidence. The court found that the plaintiffs' new reports did not sufficiently separate the issues as required. The court concluded that the plaintiffs must provide further revised reports that address distinct topics to comply with the procedural orders.

In light of these findings, the court ordered that the plaintiffs serve further revised, stand-alone expert reports that address separate issues by a specified date. The court also varied the time frame for the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process. Additionally, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs associated with the hearing. The plaintiffs were granted liberty to apply for further orders with appropriate notice.