A Class Piling & Drilling Pty Limited v Seventy Eight Promotions Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 308

Catchwords: EVIDENCE - Objection taken to quotes obtained for the purposes of advancing plaintiff’s case – Whether any probative value. District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: A Class Piling & Drilling Pty Limited v Seventy Eight Promotions Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 308 Hearing dates: 21 February 2024 Date of orders: 21 February 2024 Decision date: 21 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: I admit the documents. Catchwords: EVIDENCE - Objection taken to quotes obtained for the purposes of advancing plaintiff’s case – Whether any probative value. Legislation Cited: Nil. Cases Cited: Nil. Texts Cited: Nil. Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Plaintiff – A Class Piling & Drilling Pty Limited Defendant – Seventy Eight Promotions Pty Limited Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff – Young, J. Defendant – Street, C. Solicitors: Plaintiff – Moray & Agnew Defendant – HWL Ebsworth Lawyers File Number(s): 2023/00103136 Publication restriction: Nil. Judgment Admissibility of Evidence HIS HONOUR: Objection is taken by the defendant to pp 374 to 392 of the Court Book which are p ages 3 to 21 of the annexure to the affidavit of Mr Baker which is exhibit C. It is common ground that after the drilling rig in question was damaged it was further repaired by the plaintiff itself and subsequently attempts were made to try to value the work conducted on the damaged rig by the plaintiff itself. For that purpose quotations were sought well after the work carried out by the plaintiff as to what it would have cost for the work to have been done if the work had been outsourced. Necessarily there is a delay in time, for example, a "quotation" which can only amount to an opinion was obtained from ACRS Coating Solutions Pty Ltd of Merewether. The quotation bears date 9 May 2022. It would speak only of the value of the work which that company thought may have been carried out by the plaintiff as at 9 May 2022 when the wor k was done , as I understand it , in 2018. The evidence has some probative value. The extent of that probative value may be limited and certainly adjustments must be made if it is to be relied upon because of the time lapse. True it is that these quotations have not been deposed to by affidavit and the documents are self-serving in the sense that they were obtained by the plaintiff to bolster its own case. The identity of the person from the company at Merewether is not identified albeit that there may be an attempt to do so by Mr Baker. The document at p ages 376 to 379 appears to be an exchange of emails between Mr Muadin , a director of the defendant, and Mr Barrett Rahn who appears to be related to a Brazilian company and copied to Mr Thiago Pellegrini who also appears to be related to a Brazilian company, that again referring to the value of items used in the alleged repair after the repair had been conducted. The Brazilian company gives its name in English, CZM Foundation Equipment. YOUNG: Your Honour, I'm loath to interrupt, and I should have made this submission before, but I've just noticed that to the extent it's relevant and I don't know if it is, Mr Baker at para graph s 18 and 19 of his affidavit makes a further point to say that he made those inquiries in 2018 and didn't keep the documents. It just changes the complexion slightly. He says it again in 19. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. For the sake of saving time and expense, I propose to admit the documents including between the organisation in Alabama, the Brazilian company, and the company at Merewether unless, of course, evidence be adduced that, for example, the dealings were not at arm's length or vitiated in some other way. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 July 2024