McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Assessors)

The case involved a class action brought by McNickle against Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd concerning the alleged carcinogenic effects of Roundup. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with considering the appointment of an assessor to assist in the evaluation of technical evidence in the case. The central legal issues revolved around the scope and function of an assessor, the process for appointing an assessor, and the confidentiality of communications between the assessor, the court's chambers, and the judge. The court also had to consider whether the assessor should be granted immunity similar to that of a witness and the appropriate allocation of costs associated with the assessor's appointment.

The court examined the history and role of assessors in complex litigation, particularly in class actions involving technical issues. The court concluded that the scope of the assessor's duties should be tailored to the specific needs of the case, drawing on the precedent set in the Black Saturday class action. The court emphasised the importance of selecting an assessor who not only possesses the requisite expertise but also has the ability to communicate complex concepts effectively to those without specialised knowledge. The court proposed to make inquiries of the proposed assessors to identify the most suitable candidate. Additionally, the court planned to make orders to ensure the confidentiality of communications between the assessor and the court, to grant the assessor immunity similar to that of a witness, and to allocate the costs of the assessor to the parties in accordance with traditional Admiralty practice.

The court adjourned the proceeding to allow time for the making of formal orders regarding the appointment of an assessor or assessors, the confidentiality of communications, the immunity of the assessor, and the allocation of costs. The court also noted that entry of orders would be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The decision highlighted the importance of carefully selecting and appointing assessors in complex litigation to ensure that they can effectively assist the court in understanding and evaluating technical evidence.