Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 (No 2)

The case of Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 (No 2) involved the applicants, Stolfa, who were contesting a decision made by the Owners Corporation of Strata Plan No 4366 regarding the costs of replacing a roof. The applicants sought leave to adduce evidence from a second expert, in addition to the single expert appointed by both parties, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants argued that the evidence of the single expert was not sufficient to determine the quantum of the costs associated with the roof replacement.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to adduce evidence from a second expert when a single expert had already been appointed by both parties. The applicants contended that the single expert's evidence was not sufficient to determine the quantum of the costs associated with the roof replacement. The respondents argued that the applicants had not demonstrated that the single expert's evidence was inadequate and that permitting the addition of a second expert would be an abuse of process.

The court considered the relevant case law and principles governing the admissibility of expert evidence in strata disputes. The court held that the decision to permit the adducing of evidence from a second expert was within the discretion of the court, and that such discretion should be exercised sparingly. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the single expert's evidence was inadequate or that the addition of a second expert was necessary to determine the quantum of the costs associated with the roof replacement. The court concluded that the application for leave to adduce evidence from a second expert should be refused.

The court's final order was that the applicants' application for leave to adduce evidence from a second expert be dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the application.