Springfield City Group Pty Ltd v Pipe Networks Pty Ltd

In the matter of Springfield City Group Pty Ltd v Pipe Networks Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought leave to tender a new expert report on the seventh day of a scheduled ten-day trial. The plaintiff's expert, Mr. O'Shea, had previously prepared a report based on assumptions that had become outdated. The new report aimed to update the calculations using a revenue data schedule agreed upon by the parties, which was finalised just days before the trial commenced. Despite the case being managed on the commercial list, the plaintiff did not raise the possibility that a new expert report might disrupt the trial's conduct. The defendant opposed the plaintiff's application, arguing that the new report's assumptions had not been proven and that the report failed to comply with the statement of reasoning rule. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff's failure to disclose the possibility of the new report was partly due to the defendant's inadequate disclosure.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to prepare a new expert report based on the revenue data schedule and, if so, whether this would necessitate an adjournment of the trial. The court also needed to determine whether the objections to the admissibility of the new expert report should be addressed immediately or deferred until the final reasons for judgment. The court considered the implications of allowing the new report, including the need for the defendant to further brief its expert, which would likely require an adjournment of the trial. Furthermore, the court examined whether the expert report's failure to comply with the statement of reasoning rule could be corrected or if it constituted a fundamental flaw.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to tender the new report, noting the lateness of the application and the potential disruption to the trial. However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to file a further report from Mr. O'Shea by a specified date, provided that the report consolidated his reasons, was based on identified assumptions, contained a statement of reasoning, and was relevant to the pleaded issues. The ruling on the defendant's objections to the new report and a joint expert report was reserved for later determination. The trial was adjourned, and a case management hearing was set for a future date. The costs of the proceeding were reserved for determination at a later stage.