Procedural Unfairness Rejects Joint Expert Report Portion
📌 In brief
In a civil case, the court found that it was procedurally unfair for one party to introduce a new method called photogrammetry without giving the other party enough time to respond. As a result, part of the joint expert report was rejected.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The court accepted that the photogrammetry analysis could be useful and potentially very probative.
- The court recognized that the other experts were capable of pointing out any doubts regarding the results of the photogrammetry analysis during the concurrent evidence process.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court rejected the use of new methodologies introduced without giving the opposing party adequate time to respond.
- The court found it unfair to require the opposing party to deal with the results of a new methodology introduced during the conclave without having had the chance to perform their own analysis.
- The court determined that the lateness with which the new analysis was applied, which was not explained, deprived the opposing party of the opportunity to conduct their own analysis.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
One party introduced a new method called photogrammetry without giving the other party enough time to respond.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that introducing new methodologies without adequate notice is procedurally unfair.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied, as the decision was based on procedural fairness principles.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the opposing party was not given adequate time to respond to the new methodology.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who introduced the new methodology without adequate notice.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any new methodologies introduced during a case give the opposing party sufficient time to respond.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the joint expert report and the introduction of the new photogrammetry methodology.