Morgan v Owners of Strata Plan 13937 & anor [2005] NSWSC 1304

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Morgan v Owners of Strata Plan 13937 & anor [2005] NSWSC 1304

HEARING DATE(S) : 21-24 November 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 22 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF : Brereton J

CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE - expert evidence - expert "safety consultant" - opinions no more than common sense, or speculation not based on training experience or study - report rejected

Thomas Patrick Morgan (plaintiff) PARTIES : The Owners Strata Plan No 13937 (first defendant) Dennis Hales Strata Plan Management Pty Limited (second defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 020049/03

T D F Hughes (plaintiff) COUNSEL : A D M Hewitt SC (defendants)

G H Healey & Co - Ashfield (plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Curwood & Partners (defendants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION PROGRESSIVE LIST

Brereton J

Tuesday 22 November 2005

020049/03 Thomas Patrick Morgan v The Owners Strata Plan No 13937 & Another

JUDGMENT – (On tender of expert report; see page 142 of transcript) (ex tempore - revised 21 December 2005) 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff tenders a report of Richard Spencer dated 19 February 2003. 2 Mr Spencer describes himself as a chartered safety professional. He holds the qualifications of Graduate Diploma Applied Science in Occupational Health and Safety which he obtained from the University of Western Sydney in or about 1997, and a Masters in Safety from the same institution which he obtained in about late 1998, as a result of a combination of three years part time course work, and a thesis, which thesis was on the topic of aspects of military safety in war and peace, apparently in a Naval setting. Prior to his interest in safety, Mr Spencer has a background in marine engineering. He is a chartered marine technologist and, in the past, a marine engineer. 3 Part One of his report sets out the information which he has received and perused. Part Two contains some particulars of the plaintiff and Part Three of the defendant. Part Four sets out the substance of an interview which he had with the plaintiff and a conclusion which he drew from the facts elicited. Part Five summarises his understanding of the incident before embarking on a commentary on a report by the defendant's expert, which is not yet and may never be in evidence. Part Six comments on the defendant's expert report, again being a report which is not yet and may never be in evidence.