Good help is hard to find for Piper Alderman as substitute expert rejected

When Piper Alderman ran into difficulty with its key expert witness just prior to trial in the Discovery Metals shareholder class action, its application for leave shortly before trial to rely on a report of a substituted expert was refused.

This is a class action on behalf of shareholders in Discovery Metals Ltd, arising from a failed hostile take-over bid by Cathay Fortune Investment Ltd. The defendant (KPMG) provided an independent expert report in connection with the proposed take-over, which the plaintiff claims was misleading or deceptive. The proceeding is listed for a three week trial, which is due to commence on 25 March 2019. In this judgment, Stevenson J dealt with an application by the plaintiff for leave to rely on a report of a substituted expert, in circumstances which appear quite remarkable.

The plaintiff had, in chief, served an expert report of a Mr Molony (a mergers and acquisitions expert). In response, the defendant served an expert report of Mr Nash. The plaintiff’s lawyers then sought to instruct Mr Molony to prepare a reply report in response to Mr Nash’s report. Initially, Mr Molony refused to communicate with the plaintiff’s lawyers, and when he ultimately did so (through his own lawyer) he refused to prepare a reply report. It appears (reading between the lines) that his refusal was based on his dealings with the plaintiff’s lawyers during the course of preparing his expert report in chief. Ultimately, however, Mr Molony did agree to prepare a reply report, but on conditions including that “it is acknowledged and agreed that whilst Mr Molony is willing to discuss in detail the contents of any draft report, he is entitled to cease those discussions should he consider that to do so would conflict with his paramount duty to the court”. Mr Molony’s reply report was subsequently prepared, and was served on the defendant.

However, the plaintiff’s lawyers, having lost confidence in Mr Molony’s preparedness to co-operate, engaged a substituted expert (Mr McCarty) to prepare a report, and in this application sought leave to rely on Mr McCarty’s report in substitution for Mr Molony’s reports. Justice Stevenson refused the application, essentially on the basis that:

  • service of the substituted report, so close to trial, would undoubtedly cause serious prejudice to KPMG
  • it was unnecessary, in circumstances where there was no indication that Mr Molony would not, consistent with his duties as an independent expert, attend a conclave with the defendant’s expert (if required), and also attend the trial to give evidence.

Thus, it appears, the plaintiff is now in the unenviable position of proceeding to a trial with an expert witness in whom his lawyers have not only lost confidence, but have also disclosed that very fact to both the defendant and to the Court.

Case details

Tredrea v KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 130

  • Supreme Court of New South Wales, Stevenson J, 21 February 2019
  • Plaintiff's Solicitors: Piper Alderman
  • Defendant's Solicitors: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
  • Plaintiff's Funder: N/A

Read more on Austlii: Tredrea v KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 130


Andrew Watson

National Head of Class Actions, Class actions, Melbourne

"I'm an experienced litigator in class actions, particularly for shareholders who have been victims of corporate misconduct."

Ben Slade

State Managing Principal, Office Leader, Class actions, Sydney

"I am driven to give a voice to those who would otherwise have to suffer because those who have done them wrong are all too powerful."

Kimi Nishimura

Principal Lawyer, Class actions, Melbourne

"I'm committed to fighting for the rights of victims of corporate misconduct as well as pursuing compensation on behalf of my clients."

Rebecca Gilsenan

Executive Director, Principal Lawyer, Class actions, Sydney

"I have extensive experience in running complex and novel litigation, including class actions in the areas of price fixing, failed investment schemes, product liability and securities."

Miranda Nagy

Principal Lawyer, Class actions, Sydney

"I have a strong conviction that the community should be able to expect our governments and the companies we deal with to comply with the law."

Julian Schimmel

Principal Lawyer, Class actions, Sydney

"Class actions are a unique legal mechanism that have helped hundreds of thousands of people receive compensation after mistreatment at the hands of powerful companies, and it’s gratifying to help people get access to justice when otherwise it would’ve been difficult for them."

Vavaa Mawuli

Principal, Class actions, Brisbane

"The most rewarding thing about my work is the change in scale of what we are able to accomplish."

It doesn’t cost you anything to know where you stand

Can we help?
Find an office near you
Your local office

Let us contact you

It doesn’t cost you anything to know where you stand

We take calls 24/7

Call us now
1800 305 568

Free Call

Find an office near you
Your local office

Let us contact you