Rivercity Motorway Finance Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd

The case of Rivercity Motorway Finance Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd involved an application for orders regarding particulars, discovery of documents, and disclosure of expert evidence. The applicants, Rivercity Motorway Finance and Rivercity Motorway Holdings, sought particulars and discovery of documents from the respondent, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, in relation to traffic forecasts made for the North South Bypass Tunnel (NSBT) in Brisbane. The applicants alleged that AECOM had lacked reasonable grounds for the traffic forecasts and sought further information to substantiate this claim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants' allegation that AECOM lacked reasonable grounds for the traffic forecasts was adequately particularised and whether discovery of specific documents and models should occur before the applicants prepared and served their expert reports. The court considered whether the applicants' statement of claim sufficiently detailed the allegation to allow AECOM to respond effectively and whether the discovery of complex traffic models and related materials should precede the preparation of expert evidence.

The court found that the applicants' allegation was not adequately particularised and required further information to enable AECOM to respond effectively. The court ruled that the applicants must provide further and better particulars of their claim, detailing the specific bases for their allegation that AECOM lacked reasonable grounds for the traffic forecasts. Additionally, the court ordered that AECOM must provide discovery of its traffic models and related materials in native format, along with details of any software used. The court emphasised the importance of timely discovery to allow the applicants to prepare their expert evidence effectively. The applicants were also required to provide discovery of various documents related to their operations and decision-making processes concerning the NSBT.

In conclusion, the court ordered both parties to provide further and better particulars of their claims and defences. AECOM was required to disclose specific traffic models and related materials in native format, while the applicants had to disclose various documents related to their operations and decision-making processes. The court set specific timelines for compliance with these orders and reserved costs.