Lang v Ansari

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lang v Ansari [2025] NSWDC 134
Hearing dates: 08 April 2025
Date of orders: 08 April 2025
Decision date: 08 April 2025
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:

Orders:

(1) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file in court a Notice of Removal of Solicitor dated 3 April 2025.

(2) Upon the plaintiff giving an undertaking to the Court to pay the applicable filing fee, grant leave to the plaintiff to file in court:

(a) A Notice of Motion dated 7 April 2025; and

(b) The affidavit of Cherie Lang dated 7 April 2025.

In relation to the Notice of Motion of the defendant filed on 31 March 2025:

(3) Leave is granted to the defendants to rely on the reports of:

(a) Dr Ron Bezic dated 22 December 2024;

(b) Associate Professor Philip Truskett dated 2 February 2025; and

(c) Dr Anthony Samuels dated 21 January 2025.

(4) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 31 March 2025 and any costs of the plaintiff thrown away by the vacation of the hearing date as agreed or assessed.

(5) The hearing commencing 28 April 2025 is vacated.

In relation to the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion filed on 8 April 2025:

(1) Paragraphs 1-5 are dismissed.

(2) Paragraph 7 is dismissed.

(3) The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 8 April 2025 are to be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vacation of hearing date – leave to rely on expert reports

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

AonRisk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Fulton v Surfing Australia Limited [2025] NSWDC 115

Irfanv Western Sydney Local Health District [2023] NSWSC 845

Soma‑DevanvScentre Shopping Management Pty Ltd t/as Westfield Hurstville (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 95

Yacoub v Pilkington (Australia) Ltd [2007] NSWCA 290

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Cherie Lang (Plaintiff)
Masood Ansari (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Berberian (Defendant)

Solicitors:
In Person (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant)
L Power (amicus curiae)
File Number(s): 2023/00345851
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE

  1. Before the Court for determination are two Notices of Motion, one filed by the plaintiff and one filed by the defendant.

  2. The defendant’s Notice of Motion was filed on 31 March 2025 and seeks orders for an extension of time for the defendant to rely upon expert liability and expert causation/quantum evidence. In the alternative, an order vacating the hearing date is sought.

  3. The plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 7 April 2025 seeks orders that certain expert reports which the defendant seeks leave to rely on be excluded from the defendant’s evidence and not admitted at the proceedings, and various other procedural orders. A further order is sought vacating the hearing and for the matter to be transferred to Gosford District Court.

  4. At the hearing of the Notices of Motion, Ms Berberian of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lang v Ansari and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWDC 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lang v Ansari involved the plaintiff, Lang, who sought damages against the defendant, Ansari, for professional negligence. The dispute centred on the defendant’s conduct in the course of providing legal advice, which Lang claimed was substandard and resulted in financial loss. The matter was before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central legal issues before the court were whether Lang was entitled to vacate the scheduled hearing date to rely on expert reports and whether these reports were admissible in the proceedings.

The court considered the procedural fairness and the admissibility of the expert reports as crucial to the case. It was determined that the plaintiff had not acted with due diligence in obtaining and presenting the expert reports, as they were produced shortly before the hearing date. The court examined the circumstances under which the reports were obtained and whether there were any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the usual procedural rules. The court also assessed whether the content of the reports was relevant and whether they would assist in determining the merits of the case. Given the late submission of the reports and the lack of exceptional circumstances, the court concluded that allowing the reports would prejudice the defendant's right to a fair hearing.

The court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s application to vacate the hearing date and to admit the expert reports. The court held that procedural fairness required adherence to the scheduled hearing date, and the late submission of expert evidence did not warrant an exception. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify vacating the hearing date or admitting the expert reports. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure a fair and just outcome for both parties. The orders made by the court were that the hearing would proceed as scheduled, and the expert reports were not admitted as evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.