18 November 2014 Dailhou v Kelly; State of NSW v Kelly (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 1213; Dailhou v Kelly; State of NSW v Kelly (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1207 The Supreme Court of New South Wales confined the use of an expert’s report to a single issue because its author had not attended an expert conclave and it addressed other matters that went beyond the Court’s directions. The case involved a primary school teacher, Mr Dailhou, who travelled to Sydney to attend an education conference. In the evening, Mr Dailhou was browsing in a nearby bookshop, when he was injured in a fall – allegedly from the ground floor, down a flight of stairs, to the basement level. He sued the bookshop owner for negligence. The Court directed the plaintiff (Mr Dailhou) to serve a medical report on his life expectancy by 20 May 2014. The plaintiff served a report by Dr Buckley on 29 May 2014. Although no point was taken about its lateness, the defendants objected to Dr Buckley’s report on the basis that it addressed matters outside the remit relating to life expectancy. Specifically, the report expressed Dr Buckley’s views on ‘causation of the accident, injury suffered in the accident, investigations carried out and examinations carried out by Dr Buckley, causation, prognosis, requirements for care, handyman and fitness for work’. Dr Buckley had not participated in a joint conclave of experts attended by four other doctors. The Court considered that to allow all of Dr Buckley’s evidence would have been inconsistent with the principles of case management and efficient conduct of proceedings provided for in the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Although Dr Buckley’s report was admitted in its entirety, it was allowed only on the question of life expectancy, and not the other matters. This case reminds litigants and their lawyers to seek suitable directions from courts before obtaining expert evidence and to comply strictly with directions made. Failure to do so may waste some or all of the resources invested in preparing the expert evidence, and may damage the litigant’s prospects at trial. “Directions made by the Court for the orderly and efficient conduct of proceedings ought not be ridden over roughshod by parties who serve reports of experts who have not participated in the joint conclave process.” Adamson J. Matthew Ashby Partner, Brisbane +61 7 3834 9297 Other Forensic contacts Greg Meredith Head of Forensics Partner, Melbourne +61 3 9604 5118 Peter Holmes Partner, Adelaide +61 8 8100 7663 Wynand Mullins Partner, Sydney +61 2 9286 9921 Every month, Ferrier Hodgson examines the latest expert witness news. If you have any comments or suggestions, please email Jessica Mead. If you know of others you think would be interested to receive Expert Postcard, please send us their details. If you would like to change your subscription details click here and select "Want to know More?". If you wish to see previous editions of the Expert Postcard click here. Ferrier Hodgson is not a law firm and we do not present these summaries as legal advice. For more information about our se rv ice s, ple ase contact one of our office s. Or find out more at: www.fe rrie rhodgson.com: Melbourne: Greg Meredith +61 3 9604 5118 [email protected] Sydney: Wynand Mullins +61 2 9286 9921 [email protected] Adelaide: Peter Holmes +61 8 8100 7663 [email protected] Singapore: Tim Reid +65 6416 1400 [email protected] Brisbane: Matthew Ashby +61 7 3834 9297 [email protected] Perth: Martin Jones +61 8 9214 1405 [email protected]