John v Henderson (No.1)

In John v Henderson (No.1), the plaintiff sought to recover damages for professional negligence allegedly caused by the defendant. The dispute centred on the admissibility and scope of expert evidence in the context of a proceeding governed by the Practice Note SC CL 7. This note mandates that expert evidence be given concurrently, but the parties had failed to agree on the precise issues to be addressed by their respective experts. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the proposed questions for the experts were appropriate and in line with the procedural guidelines.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should intervene to determine the specific issues to be considered by the experts, given the parties' inability to reach an agreement. The court had to balance the need for a speedy resolution of the case, as mandated by sections 58 and 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, against the procedural fairness of allowing the parties to define the scope of expert evidence. The court also needed to consider the implications of Practice Note SC CL 7 in this context.

The court held that it was appropriate to intervene and determine the issues to be considered by the experts. It emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair and efficient trial process, particularly in cases involving complex expert evidence. By specifying the issues, the court aimed to streamline the proceedings and avoid unnecessary delays. The court also noted that while parties should generally be allowed to define the scope of expert evidence, the overriding objective of ensuring a just and timely resolution of disputes necessitated judicial intervention in this instance.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the text. However, it is expected that the court would issue directions regarding the scope of expert evidence and potentially set timelines for the submission of expert reports.