The Court ruled four joint hydrology expert reports inadmissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act because the experts failed to adequately expose their reasoning processes, did not identify the assumptions underlying their opinions, used unexplained technical language inconsistent with the governing regulatory framework, and provided spreadsheets spanning hundreds of pages without any explanation of how they were used to reach conclusions. The Court held it was appropriate to exercise the s 192A advance ruling discretion where admissibility would critically inform how proceedings would run, the matter had test case significance, and preparation was well advanced. The reports were excluded in their entirety rather than partially, as the nature and scope of the deficiencies were of such magnitude that admissible parts could not be salvaged from the self-contained reports.
The full text is available to signed-in members.