Menegazzo v PricewaterhouseCoopers

The plaintiff, a beneficiary of family trusts, initiated legal proceedings against his siblings, who were also beneficiaries and had become directors of the corporate trustees of the trusts following their father's death. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant siblings had acquired his interests in the trusts below value and in breach of trust. The court had appointed experts to value the assets, but the plaintiff challenged these valuations and sought to rely on his own experts. The plaintiff sought orders to appoint his experts as court experts, to lead their evidence, and for one of them to inspect the properties. The defendants opposed the inspection on safety and business interference grounds.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff's experts should be appointed as court experts, whether the plaintiff should be allowed to rely on their evidence, and whether the plaintiff's expert should be authorised to inspect the properties, subject to conditions. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to challenge the valuations with the defendants' concerns about safety, business interference, and potential contamination of the properties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to appoint his experts as court experts but granted leave for him to lead their evidence at trial. The court authorised the plaintiff's expert to inspect the properties but subject to further directions and conditions to address the defendants' concerns. The court adjourned the question of the directions and conditions for the inspection to a later date and directed the parties to be heard on the question of costs.

The court made the following orders: (1) dismissing the plaintiff's application to appoint his experts as court experts; (2) granting the plaintiff leave to lead evidence from his experts; (3) authorising the plaintiff's expert to inspect the properties subject to further directions and conditions; (4) adjourning the question of the directions and conditions for the inspection; and (5) directing the parties to be heard on the question of costs.