Australia, July 28 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 27:

1. This matter came before me today pursuant to the motions filed by the plaintiff, Ms Hudson, in her matter and on behalf of each of the McBeth plaintiffs. The proceedings relate to a plane crash, which occurred on 23 January 2020 whilst the operator of the plane was engaged in aerial firefighting operations during the severe 2020 Australian bushfire season.

2. Sadly, while the particular Lockheed aircraft was involved in aerial firefighting, the plane crashed, leading to the tragic loss of life of all three members, Rick DeMorgan Jr, Paul Hudson and Ian McBeth.

3. Ms Hudson, an American citizen, is pursuing proceedings in this Court for damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW); as is Ms McBeth, who is pursuing a Compensation to Relatives Act claim and a nervous shock claim. Each of her children are also pursuing nervous shock claims.

4. The matter has a lengthy history. It is obviously one of significant complexity, difficulty and gives rise to important issues. In any event, there has been a significant delay in the preparation of the case for hearing resulting in the Common Law Registrar making orders for the service of expert evidence by the plaintiffs and requiring the plaintiffs to obtain leave of the Court should they not serve their reports in time.

5. As it turns out they did not serve their reports in time and in fact they have not finalised the service of their expert reports. The reason for this is said to be mainly that, as a result of a conflict between the Hudson party and the McBeth parties, there needed to be new solicitors appointed so that the Hudson party and the McBeth parties have now gone their separate ways and have retained different sets of solicitors.

6. Those solicitors say independently of each other that, firstly, they have had difficulty getting the former solicitor's file; secondly, certain steps have been taken to obtain expert reports but they have not yet come to fruition; and, thirdly, at least on behalf of the McBeth parties, further documents are needed before their expert reports can be finalised.

7. The defendants candidly take the position they do not oppose the late service of the reports but are concerned that appropriate directions be put in place to ensure the matters move forward efficiently and the plaintiffs serve their reports as soon as possible. Of course, the reason they do not oppose is because the plaintiffs, as yet, do not have any expert reports and everyone acknowledges that unless the plaintiffs be granted leave to serve expert reports then the case is essentially over.

8. In all these circumstances, I am satisfied that leave should be granted to the plaintiffs to serve their expert reports on liability.

9. I anticipate that each plaintiff will only have one expert report but, as already articulated by Mr Hickey on behalf of the Hudson party, it may be necessary to have two; one as against each defendant. However, I emphasise that I will need to be convinced as to the need for two reports rather than just one expert report.

10. In the circumstances the orders sought in both motions are granted, and leave is granted to both plaintiffs to serve expert reports on liability.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1982bfde67ddf772c7a10124)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.