The Court considered whether the Defendant’s expert report was admissible under Rule 8.16(1) which states: states that “...[u]nless the Court otherwise permits, no more than one expert is permitted to give opinion evidence on any one subject on behalf of a party.”

The Defendants sought to introduce an expert report where it had previously introduced another expert report relating to the same issue - the quantum of damages - in an earlier, related decision.

In this decision, the Court determined that the proposed expert report was inadmissible under Rule 8.16(1) after hearing about the proposed expert’s qualifications. The Court noted in the previous decision that whether to allow a second expert to give an opinion on the same subject matter as another expert depends on whether the evidence is relevant and whether calling both experts could be considered piling on or duplicative. Evaluating these factors, the Court determined the parts of the expert report that the Defendant intended to rely on were not sufficiently connected to the issue at hand to be relevant and that allowing the expert report to be introduced as evidence would be duplicative and, thus, prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.