Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No 10)

In this matter, Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd sought compensation from the Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority, trading as Seqwater, alleging damage to their property due to flooding from a dam. The parties disputed the cause of the flooding and the extent of the damages. The case was heard in the Queensland District Court, presided over by Justice Davies. The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the expert evidence presented by Rodriguez & Sons was admissible under the Evidence Act 1994. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the simulations included in the expert report, which were based on inflows that the expert now disavowed, could be admitted under section 135 of the Act.

Justice Davies concluded that the expert evidence was not admissible because the expert had disavowed the inflows upon which the simulations were based. The court held that the evidence did not comply with the requirements of section 135, which stipulates that evidence based on supposed facts must be supported by evidence of those facts. Given that the expert had disavowed the supposed inflows, the court found that the evidence did not meet the statutory criteria for admissibility. Consequently, the court excluded the expert's report, which significantly impacted Rodriguez & Sons' case, as the report was central to their claim.

The court dismissed Rodriguez & Sons' claim for compensation, finding that without the expert evidence, they had not discharged the onus of proving their case. The decision underscored the importance of the integrity of expert evidence and the necessity for experts to stand by the facts upon which their opinions are based. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Seqwater, and Rodriguez & Sons' claim was dismissed. No appeal was noted, and the judgment stood as the final determination of the matter.