Luigi Iacullo v Remly Pty Limited ACN 106 966 278

Luigi Iacullo, the plaintiff, has commenced proceedings against Remly Pty Limited, seeking damages for breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the primary issue was the admissibility of expert evidence that had not been previously subject to any directions from the court. Specifically, Iacullo sought to adduce expert evidence in the field of financial analysis, a class of evidence that had not been addressed in any prior directions. The defendant opposed the application on the grounds that the evidence was not necessary, as adequate evidence could be obtained from experts already engaged in the proceedings, and because Iacullo had not sought timely directions in relation to this class of evidence with the trial impending.

The court considered whether it was appropriate to grant leave for Iacullo to adduce the expert evidence in question. In assessing this, the court noted that Iacullo had failed to seek directions regarding the financial expert evidence at an appropriate time, and that the trial was drawing near. The court held that the evidence was not necessary because there was sufficient evidence from other experts already engaged in the proceedings. Additionally, the court observed that the failure to seek timely directions in relation to this class of expert evidence was a significant factor in the decision. Given these considerations, the court was satisfied that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave for the expert evidence to be adduced.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application to adduce the expert evidence. The court emphasised the importance of timely directions and the necessity of expert evidence in ensuring a fair trial. The case highlights the need for parties to carefully consider the timing and necessity of expert evidence, and to seek appropriate directions to avoid such issues arising at a late stage in the proceedings.