Soma-Devan v SCentre Shopping Management Pty Ltd t/as Westfield Hurstville (No 2)

The plaintiffs, Soma-Devan, sought leave to rely on expert evidence in relation to their claim for psychiatric injury against the defendant, SCentre Shopping Management Pty Ltd, trading as Westfield Hurstville. The case was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs had previously filed an amended particulars to renew their claim for psychiatric injury. The defendant opposed the plaintiffs' application for leave to rely on expert evidence due to the delay in providing the reports and the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs could rely on the expert reports given the delay in filing them and whether the overriding purpose and objects of case management, as outlined in rule 31.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), were satisfied. The court had to determine if exceptional circumstances existed that justified the delay in providing the expert evidence. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the client legal privilege claimed by the plaintiffs' solicitor was waived and, if so, to what extent the scope of the subpoena should be narrowed.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established exceptional circumstances that justified the delay in providing the expert evidence. The plaintiffs' explanation for the delay was considered reasonable and satisfactory. The court held that the overriding purpose and objects of case management were met, as the expert evidence was necessary to understand and evaluate the psychiatric injury claim. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to rely on the expert reports. In relation to the subpoena to the plaintiffs' solicitor, the court found that the client legal privilege was waived to some extent. The scope of the subpoena was narrowed accordingly, and the plaintiffs' objection to the subpoena was withdrawn.

The court made orders allowing the plaintiffs to rely on the expert reports and narrowed the scope of the subpoena to the plaintiffs' solicitor in accordance with the findings on client legal privilege.