Hannam v State of New South Wales (No 2)

In the matter of Hannam v State of New South Wales (No 2), the dispute centred around the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to serve expert reports and an advance ruling on the admissibility of those reports. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address were whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension for the late service of expert reports and the appropriate application of section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in the context of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The defendant argued that the delay was partially due to the plaintiff's communications and the impact of COVID-19 on case preparation. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the defendant's delay was unjustifiable, the report was deficient, and that the expertise claimed by the defendant was not sufficiently relevant or "arcane" to warrant an extension. The plaintiff also argued that the late service of the reports would cause unfair prejudice.

The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of time for the service of the expert reports. The delay was not attributed to COVID-19 or the plaintiff's actions. The court also held that the expertise claimed by the defendant was not sufficiently arcane to justify the delay. Furthermore, the court determined that the purpose of section 192A was not to evade the procedural rules. Consequently, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs awarded against the plaintiff.

The court further dismissed the plaintiff's motion for an advance ruling on the admissibility of the expert reports, also awarding costs. The court concluded that the application of section 192A was not intended to circumvent the procedural rules, and the motion was without merit.