UCPR Evidence 16: One Expert Rule: Expert Evidence in Queensland(UCPR rr 429I–429K, 429Q, 429R–429S) скачать в хорошем качестве

UCPR Evidence 16: One Expert Rule: Expert Evidence in Queensland(UCPR rr 429I–429K, 429Q, 429R–429S)

In this episode of LawCast Australia, we unpack how Queensland courts manage expert evidence to keep litigation lean, fair, and focused. You’ll learn when a single expert will be the only voice on a technical issue, how to lock in joint experts before a proceeding even starts, and the strict disclosure and update duties that can make—or break—your case strategy. What we cover Scope & forum (r 429Q): Why these joint-expert mechanisms apply to proceedings in the Supreme Court, and how that shapes early case planning. Joint expert by agreement (r 429R): How disputants can, before filing, jointly appoint an expert—agreeing on identity, timetable, and fees—so that, unless the court orders otherwise, that expert becomes the only expert on the issue later. Court-appointed expert pre-proceeding (r 429S): If agreement isn’t possible, how one side can apply to the Supreme Court to appoint an expert now to resolve a substantial issue—what must be served, why you must nominate at least three qualified experts, and the factors the court weighs (complexity, costs, expedition, justice). Practice Direction emphasis: The Supreme Court’s expectation that parties seriously consider a single joint expert and the potential for cost sanctions if multiple experts are needlessly retained. Disclosure clocks (r 429I): The hard deadlines to disclose expert reports after close of pleadings (90 days for plaintiffs, 120 for defendants, 90 for non-party litigants), and how courts treat extensions and late attempts to rely on new reports. Expert immunity (r 429J): The protection experts enjoy for the content of disclosed reports, mirroring the protection they’d have if giving the evidence orally. Changing opinions (r 429K): The expert’s positive duty to promptly notify of a material change of opinion and the follow-on requirement for directions—critical to preserve fairness and procedural integrity. Strategic takeaways Move early: obtaining a neutral opinion pre-proceedings can narrow issues, anchor settlement talks, and streamline the trial pathway. Be realistic about timetables: courts want efficient litigation, but they also demand cogent reasons for any slippage on expert deadlines. Own your disclosure: Queensland courts expect complete and timely disclosure of expert material; “deploy later” tactics risk exclusion. Keep experts current: if the science or data shift, silence can be fatal—ensure experts understand and comply with the change-of-opinion duty. Case notes to watch for in the episode We’ll walk through practical lessons from Queensland decisions on joint experts, disclosure windows, and late reliance on reports—helping you translate black-letter rules into courtroom tactics. Perfect for litigators, insurers, in-house counsel, and anyone who needs a clear, tactical roadmap for expert evidence in Queensland’s Supreme Court.