Leslie Corbett v South 32 Limited

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leslie Corbett v South 32 Limited [2018] NSWDC 179
Hearing dates: 14 and 15 March 2018
Date of orders: 15 March 2018
Decision date: 15 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
Expert report of Steve Williams dated 6 December 2017 is excluded.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – expert report – use of expertise – use of inadmissible material
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995, s 80
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leslie Corbett (plaintiff)
South 32 Limited (first defendant/first cross-claimant/first cross-defendant to third cross-claim)
Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited (second defendant/second cross-claimant/second cross-defendant to third cross-claim)
Endeavour Coal Pty Limited (third defendant/third cross-defendant to third cross-claim/fourth cross-claimant)
Allfab Constructions Pty Limited (fourth defendant/cross-defendant to first, second and fourth cross-claims/third cross-claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R A O’Keefe (plaintiff)
Mr G M Watson SC (first, second and third defendants)
Mr D Talintyre (fourth defendant)
Solicitors:
Nikolovski Lawyers (plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (first, second and third defendants)
Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (fourth defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/348238
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The first, second and fourth cross-claimants (together “West Cliff”) seek to tender the report of Steve Williams dated 6 December 2017. The report is focused principally on questions of causation, giving the author's opinion on what were the causes of the injury to Mr Corbett. Whilst that might not preclude the report going into evidence,[1] I was concerned as to whether Mr Williams had used some relevant expertise in giving his opinion about causation. However, causation in this case involves issues peculiar to the operation of a coal washer plant, an area where Mr Williams appears to have some expertise.
1. See s 80 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Of greater significance is that Mr Williams has been provided with, and at least potentially has relied upon, a large amount of inadmissible material of uncertain content. Whilst an expert might be able to cure reliance on inadmissible material by providing a supplementary report specifically eschewing any reliance on that material, that has not been done. I do not think it is appropriate to leave for the cross‑examiner the task of exploring what might be Mr Williams’ opinion in the absence of the inadmissible material.
For this reason, I propose to exclude the report. The matter might need to be reconsidered if a supplementary report is provided.
I indicated to the parties that I was prepared to consider whether any particular opinion of the witness in the report, or part of the report, should be viewed differently and allowed into evidence, perhaps provisionally. No such particular opinion or part, not subject to the same problem discussed above, was identified.

**********

Endnote

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leslie Corbett initiated legal proceedings against South 32 Limited, asserting claims related to environmental contamination. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. Corbett alleged that South 32 Limited's mining operations had caused significant environmental damage, impacting his property and health. The court was tasked with deciding whether an expert report submitted by Steve Williams, dated 6 December 2017, could be admitted as evidence. The admissibility of the expert report was a critical issue, as it contained information potentially prejudicial to the defendant, including material that was not properly admissible under the rules of evidence.

The court examined whether the expert report, despite its potentially prejudicial content, could be relied upon in the proceedings. The central legal issue was whether the expert, Steve Williams, had appropriately used his expertise and whether he had relied on inadmissible material in forming his opinions. The court was required to determine if the expert's report could be admitted in its entirety or if certain parts should be excluded to ensure a fair trial. The court considered the rules governing expert evidence, particularly focusing on the admissibility of material that may have been obtained or considered improperly.

In its decision, the Federal Court ruled that the expert report by Steve Williams was not admissible in its entirety. The court found that the expert had indeed used inadmissible material in formulating his opinions, which compromised the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, the court excluded the expert report from being used as evidence in the proceedings. The court's decision was based on the need to maintain the fairness and reliability of the evidence presented in the trial, ensuring that only properly admissible material influenced the outcome of the case.

The final orders of the court mandated the exclusion of the expert report of Steve Williams dated 6 December 2017 from the evidence in the proceedings. This decision aimed to uphold the standards of fairness and reliability in the judicial process, ensuring that the trial was conducted on the basis of admissible and properly obtained evidence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Leslie Corbett v South 32 Limited [2018] NSWDC 179
Hearing dates:	14 and 15 March 2018
Date of orders:	15 March 2018
Decision date:	15 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	Expert report of Steve Williams dated 6 December 2017 is excluded.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – expert report – use of expertise – use of inadmissible material
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995, s 80
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Leslie Corbett (plaintiff) South 32 Limited (first defendant/first cross-claimant/first cross-defendant to third cross-claim) Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited (second defendant/second cross-claimant/second cross-defendant to third cross-claim) Endeavour Coal Pty Limited (third defendant/third cross-defendant to third cross-claim/fourth cross-claimant) Allfab Constructions Pty Limited (fourth defendant/cross-defendant to first, second and fourth cross-claims/third cross-claimant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr R A O’Keefe (plaintiff) Mr G M Watson SC (first, second and third defendants) Mr D Talintyre (fourth defendant) Solicitors: Nikolovski Lawyers (plaintiff) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (first, second and third defendants) Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (fourth defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/348238
Publication restriction:	None