● P1 v Trustees of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart; ● P2 v Trustees of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart; ● P3 v Trustees of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart; ● P4 v Trustees..

In the matter of P1, P2, P3, and P4 versus the Trustees of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, the plaintiffs sought to introduce expert reports just prior to the final hearing of their respective claims. The defendants objected to the late service of these reports, arguing that they had not been served in accordance with the rules and that they had been prejudiced by the plaintiffs' failure to seek directions for service earlier. The court was required to determine whether it should order the service of the reports under UCPR 31.19(3), despite the failure to seek such directions, and if so, whether the late service of the reports would result in undue prejudice to the defendants.

The court considered the provisions of UCPR 31.19(3) and the principles of fairness and justice in making its decision. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay in serving the reports but found that the delay was unreasonable and without justification. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the defendants, who had not had the opportunity to respond to the content of the reports prior to the final hearing. The court concluded that the defendants had been prejudiced by the late service of the reports, as they had not had adequate time to prepare a response or to seek their own expert opinions. The court further found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an order for the service of the reports under UCPR 31.19(3).

As a result, the court declined to order the service of the reports under UCPR 31.19(3). The reports were deemed inadmissible, and the defendants' objection to the late service was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the rules and timelines for the service of expert reports, and the need for parties to plan and prepare their cases in a timely and responsible manner. The court also noted that its decision was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs' right to present their case, but rather to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly and justly for all parties involved.