Dura v Hue Boutique Living: expertise must be proved, not assumed
The decision in Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd is a sharp reminder that expert evidence in construction disputes is not assessed only by weight.
If the foundation for expertise is not properly established, the evidence may never be considered at all.
Dixon J was confronted with objections that a witness relied upon as a construction programming expert had not been shown to possess specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience.
No demonstrated specialised knowledge
The difficulty began with the report material itself. The curriculum vitae and witness statement contained no evidence of education, training or experience in construction programming. The contractor ultimately conceded the defect and sought belatedly to repair it through oral evidence.
What emerged was an experienced building consultant and expert witness, with decades of work in defects assessment and costing, and a general building degree. Undergraduate exposure to programming was noted, but the Court observed that this was no more specialised than the experience of many building or architecture graduates.
In practice, the programming experience was limited. The witness had only investigated programming issues on a handful of occasions over many years, mostly on residential projects, and none had proceeded to trial. He conceded limited contact with the regular use of construction programming on projects of this size.
Dixon J concluded that the experience was not significant, specialist or substantial. The evidence amounted to little more than applying general construction knowledge through MS Project software, rather than demonstrating specialised programming expertise.
The Court warned against the forensic risk of an “apparent expert” simply giving voice to the hypotheses advanced by the party instructing them. The result was decisive. The contractor failed to establish the gateway, and the evidence was inadmissible.
Key takeaway for delay and quantum experts
Dura is a reminder that courts do not assume expertise because a witness has worked in disputes for many years.
For delay evidence, a witness who has no experience planning and delivering construction projects cannot simply be presented as an expert because they can operate scheduling software.
For quantum experts, the lesson is the same. Courts will not assume specialised expertise simply because a witness can produce cost schedules and spreadsheets. The opinion must rest on demonstrated specialised knowledge in the relevant discipline and must expose a proper reasoning pathway from facts to valuation.
Where that foundation is missing, the evidence does not merely lose weight. It has no gateway into admissibility at all.
At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
