McNickle v Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd (Expert Evidence)

The case before the court involved a class action brought by the applicant against the respondent, alleging that the respondent's product, Roundup, had carcinogenic effects. The applicant sought to adduce expert evidence, particularly from experts who had been involved in similar proceedings, and raised concerns about the impartiality of the respondent's experts. The respondent, in turn, intended to object to the evidence of the applicant's experts based on their prior involvement and expressed opinions. The case was before the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues in the case included whether the court should make orders to safeguard the impartiality of the experts, whether the proposed orders were unfair to the respondent, and whether an advance ruling on the admissibility of expert evidence was appropriate. The court also needed to consider whether the perceived lack of independence and impartiality of the experts went to issues of admissibility or simply the weight to be given to their evidence. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether an advance ruling was appropriate when not embraced by both parties.

The court held that orders previously made regarding the admissibility of expert evidence should be vacated as they were not supported by both parties. The court found that the perceived lack of independence and impartiality of experts did not go to admissibility but rather to the weight to be given to their evidence. Given that the parties were not aligned on the need for an advance ruling, it was inappropriate for the court to proceed with such a ruling. The court ordered that the proceeding be listed for a case management hearing to make further orders regarding expert evidence and other relevant topics.

The court also made specific orders to vacate certain previous orders and required the parties to provide any proposed orders for future progress of the proceeding at the discovery conference. The entry of orders was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.