Australia: Interference costs - for interfering with an expert's report

Expert Matters
Last Updated: 11 November 2014

Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] VSCA 3 (6 February 2014) and Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)

In this edition of Expert Matters Fionna Oliver-Taylor and Justine Quince in our Melbourne office discuss a case which found the appellant's senior counsel and solicitors personally liable to pay 40% each for a respondent's costs of the appeal for interfering with an expert's report. This case highlights that the expert's overriding duty is to the Court and not to be an advocate for its instructing party.


This was a personal injury case on appeal from the Victorian Supreme Court. The appellant ('Ms H'), a cleaner, fell whilst she was cleaning up a boys' bathroom at a suburban school where liquid soap had been spilt onto the floor.

Ms H was suing her employer, Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd ('the first respondent' or the 'employer') and the owner of school, Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Archdiocese of Melbourne ('the second respondent' or the 'school') for damages related to injuries sustained during the fall.

The trial, which was heard in front of a jury, resulted in judgment in favour of the two respondents. However, Ms H appealed that decision because of comments made by the second respondent's senior counsel in his closing address at trial. Those comments related to the conduct of Ms H's legal team regarding expert evidence during the trial.

The appeal was upheld as it was ruled that the comments by the second respondent's senior counsel had prejudiced Ms H in the eyes of the jury. The case was ordered to be re-tried by the trial judge and Ms H's senior counsel and solicitors ordered to each indemnify the second respondent for 40% of its liability to pay Ms H's costs of the appeal, as their conduct had provoked the comments made by the second respondent's senior counsel.


'Mr D', an engineer, was retained by Ms H's solicitors to provide an expert report. He provided three reports, two both dated 9 April 2010 and the third dated 12 November 2012. This later report was not served.

Reports dated 9 April 2010

At trial

It came to light during the trial that there were two versions of the 9 April 2010 report which differed primarily in the use of the word 'not' in relation to whether Ms H had reported previous incidents of vandalism in the toilet block. Under 'Assumed facts', paragraph 4.24 of the reports differed:1

"In one version paragraph 4.24 reads as follows:
Ms Hudspeth said that she had not previously seen any evidence of vandalism or missing soap dispensers during the few months over which they had been installed.
During evidence in the trial this version was referred to as the one 'with the not' ['no prior vandalism'].
The other version at paragraph 4.24 reads as follows:
Ms Hudspeth said that she had previously seen evidence of vandalism on the soap dispensers during the few months over which they had been installed, to which she had advised her employer.
During evidence in the trial this version was referred to as the one 'without the not' ['prior vandalism']."

The 'Documents and materials' section of both reports stated that the 'Assumed facts' (including paragraph 4.24) were obtained from certain documents and an interview between Mr D and Ms H at the school at a time after the incident. "...Mr [D] was clear in his evidence at trial that the source of what was said at paragraph 4.24 was the appellant herself at the interview..."2

The difference in the two expert reports first became apparent during the trial when Mr D was being examined in chief. He was being taken through his report by Counsel when it became apparent that Mr D was referring to the no prior vandalism report, whereas Counsel was referring to the prior vandalism report. Mr D identified the no prior vandalism version as being the correct one because it was consistent with his contemporaneous notes in relation to prior soap dispenser damage.

Mr D identified that the prior vandalism report was a draft which he subsequently corrected to no prior vandalism version to make things in line with what Ms H had told him in interview. He specifically denied that the alteration to paragraph 4.24 was as a result of any contact between himself and Ms H's solicitors.

Crucially, this version was inconsistent with Ms H's testimony at trial, which referred to prior vandalism.

On appeal

On appeal, additional material in the form of affidavits and submissions gave a different account as to the two versions of the 9 April 2010 expert report. In contrast to Mr D's explanation at trial:

  • The first version was the no prior vandalism version. It was served on the respondents and also on a firm of solicitors acting in related litigation, who contacted Ms H's solicitor and suggested there was an inconsistency in this report in relation to what was said about prior incidents of vandalism. Ms H's solicitor contacted an employee of Mr D's, and "As a consequence of that contact, and without any reference to Mr D himself, a new version of the report with the same date was produced and forwarded to the appellant's solicitors containing the version of 4.24 'without the not' (prior vandalism)."3 In respect of this, Mr D stated "it was 'common practice' for solicitors, including the appellant's solicitors' firm, to 'liaise' with members of his staff in relation to 'typographical and other minor errors to be dealt with, which did not require review by me'. The appellant's solicitors' firm denied that and said "there was no general arrangement whereby amendments to reports would be requested and granted without review by Mr [D] personally." 4
  • The second version was the prior vandalism report, but when it was served on the respondents, it was called simply an 'updated report'. The significant change of fact was not identified in the covering letter, and the 'Documents and materials' section was unaltered.

Several issues were identified during the appeal process:

  1. The second version of the report (prior vandalism), was not in fact a report that Mr D had prepared and authorised.5
  2. The second version did not comply with Order 44 of the Rules6 as it failed to identify an important source of factual information, being instructions from Ms H's solicitors.7
  3. The relationship between Ms H's solicitor and Mr D, which led to alterations without approval to the second version, was "inconsistent with the proper independence to be expert witness"8.
    Confusingly, at trial Mr D identified that the correct version was the first, no prior vandalism, version, but on appeal changed that view to identify that the correct version was the second, prior vandalism, version.

"His position now that the version 'with the not' (no prior vandalism) is the incorrect one is a remarkable departure from his evidence in trial."9

We include a table below setting out the differing positions Mr D apparently took during the proceedings:

Report At trial On Appeal
First version Prior vandalism No prior vandalism
Second version No prior vandalism Prior vandalism
'Correct' version No prior vandalism Prior vandalism

Tate JA summed:

"Whatever the motivations may have been, and whatever misunderstanding there were, the effect of what occurred as that [Ms H's] solicitors altered the account of what the appellant has told [Mr D] in the course of his interview with her."

Report dated 12 November 2012

Cross examination at trial revealed the existence of a third report of Mr D, dated 12 November 2012 which was never served (a contravention by Ms H's senior counsel of Order 44 the Rules11)12. The third report was based on Ms H's senior counsel's instructions which resulted in different 'Assumed facts' to Mr D's previous report and conformed with the appellant's evidence. Again, like the prior vandalism version of the 9 April 2010 report, the instructions or dealings with Ms H's senior counsel were not disclosed in the 'Documents and materials' section. Whelan JA stated: "Thus, if the report were read in isolation it was open to be interpreted, in relevant respects, as an account of what [Mr D] had been told by [Ms H]... In that respect the report, on its face, was misleading."13

Counsel for the school's closing address

The situation surrounding the three expert reports of Mr D resulted in senior counsel for the school stating in his closing address at trial:

"This [referring to the alleged inconsistency in the versions of events] was recognised during the course of the trial by the legal team acting for [Ms H] and led to [Mr D] being instructed to alter his report and to change many of the assumed facts so that an appearance of consistency would be provided to you. If that had happened, then you would have been misled. [Ms H's] legal team and [Mr D], however, didn't get away with it. Their attempt at deception to you about the assumed facts was exposed.
- - -
In this case [Ms H's] legal team imposed on [Mr D] to abandon his duty to the Court for the purpose of obtaining a forensic advantage for [Ms H], namely, to present her as a reliable witness when indeed the opposite was true. [Mr D], acting in accordance with the rules of conduct, should have resisted that pressure and refused to alter his report because he would have honestly believed that he had set out her version of events as she narrated them to him out at the [school]. But no, you know, he prepared a third report meekly complying [with] the request of [Ms H's] legal team." 14

The trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury following these remarks of senior counsel for the school was the subject of grounds 1-3 of the appeal. The inference that Ms H's legal team was deceptive or sought to mislead the Court by interfering with the evidence of Mr D was deemed as unjustifiable and unfairly prejudiced the jury against Ms H. The "comments went beyond what was justified by the evidence as it then stood"15. However, the Court of Appeal found that:

" my view the fundamental cause of what went wrong in this trial, of which the unjustified statements by senior counsel for the second respondent were the culmination, was the manner in which the appellant's lawyers dealt with the expert, [Mr D], and his reports. That would have been my conclusion had the issue been confined to what happened in relation to the 12 November 2012 report, but it is now fortified by what happened in relation to the two versions of the 9 April 2010 report."16


Responsibility for the miscarriage of the first trial was assigned to both parties – first to the school, but to a greater extent to Ms H's senior counsel and solicitors, who provoked the comments made by senior counsel for the school.

The majority in the Court of Appeal decided that Ms H, the appellant, should not be responsible for any costs associated with the appeal. Consequently, Ms H's senior counsel and the solicitors were ordered to each indemnify the school for 40% of the second respondent's liability to pay Ms H's costs of the appeal. Tate JA stated:

"The set of forensic decisions made by [Ms H's senior counsel] at trial clearly provoked the response made by senior counsel for the [school] that was the immediate or direct cause of the mistrial ... the conduct of [Ms H's solicitors] relating to the two versions of the 9 April 2010 report came close to the behaviour of which senior counsel for the second respondent wrongly complained at trial in relation to the 12 November 2012 report, namely, that [Ms H's] legal team had sought to have [Mr D] alter his record of the version of events [Ms H] had narrated to him at the school ... the existence of the two versions of the 9 April 2010 report contributed to the regrettable suspicion between the legal practitioners at trial and the misconduct since revealed further justifies the need for an adverse costs order to be made personally against the firm of [Ms H's] instructing solicitors."17


This case highlights three important aspects in the Expert Witness Code of Conduct :

  1. A person engaged as an expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially on matters relevant to the area of expertise of the witness.
  2. An expert witness is not an advocate for a party.
  3. (c) Every report prepared by an expert witness for the use of the Court shall state the opinion or opinions of the expert and shall state, specify or provide the facts, matters and assumptions on which each opinion expressed in the report is based;

Whilst experts are appointed by parties to a dispute, they have a primary duty to inform the Court of their opinion in their area of expertise. They must be an advocate for their opinion and not an advocate for their instructing party (this means disagreeing with the client if necessary). Experts must support their opinions by listing all instructions and sources relied upon.

The credibility of the expert and their opinion is lost if the instructing lawyers or counsel manipulate the report in a manner designed to assist their clients' case. Experts must ensure that any changes to the report reflect their opinion and comply with all aspects of the Expert's Code of Conduct – as it is their reputation that is at risk!

Overseas decision

KordaMentha recently published a Forensic blog on this topic which related to a Canadian decision, Moore v Getahun19 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In this decision the trial judge was highly critical of the way a medical expert [Dr T] discussed a draft copy of his report with counsel and made changes based on their suggestions stating "Discussions or meetings between counsel and an expert to review and shape a draft expert report are no longer acceptable". For more information on this case you can view our blog here.


1 Para 22-24 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
2 Para 26 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
3 Para 33(f) of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
4 Para 33(g) of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
5 Para 35 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
6 Rule 44.03(2)(d) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 which states: "The report shall state the opinion of the expert and shall state, specify or provide the facts, matters and assumptions on which the opinion is based (a letter of instructions may be annexed)."
7 Para 37 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
8 Para 40 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
9 Para 41 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
10 Para 38 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
11 44.03(3)(a) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005
12 Para 109 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] VSCA 3 (6 February 2014)
13 Para 102 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 3 (6 February 2014)
14 ara 4 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 3 (6 February 2014) Para 68 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
15 Para 68 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
16 Para 69 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
17 Para 3 of Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Ors [2014] VSCA 78 (16 April 2014)
18 Form 44A Expert Witness Code of Conduct of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005
19 Moore v. Getahun, 2014 ONSC 237

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.