NSW Insurance Company "Doesnt have to Respond" to Expert Witness Report?

[Joe1]

Hi
I am executor of an estate which is being sued based on a deed of guarantee by the deceased supposedly signed for building works undertaken in 2009. This deed indemnifies the owners corporation of the building.

As the deceased is no longer with us thus I have sought the expert advice of a document and handwriting expert to assess validity of signature and deed. The report has come back that there are discrepancies in the deed which the document expert says he would not rely on this document as evidence unless an explanation can be given about the scientific discrepancies in document. The expert has hinted the document has been put together unlawfully.

I have insisted to my legal team, barrister and lawyer, I would like a response to the expert report before I proceed as it's costing a small fortune. I have been told that the insurance company is under no obligation to respond despite them having a potentially fatally flawed case/document they are relying on!

I am told by my legal team "that's not how the law works" ...So in the meantime I can have pressure placed on me to spend money defending..asking for further particulars etc, all while their case could be worthless. Or being led to believe the insurance company knows it has a weak case but will hold off forcing me to negotiate a payout when they have potentially no case!

Where are my rights insisting in a response to the expert report be given. At least if there is a logical explanation or not Ill know to handle / fight the case on that basis.
I have been told it could take a year to resolve this.....BUT I HAVE A DOCUMENT WHICH TELLS ME I HAVE A THUS FAR POTENTIALLY STRONG CASE?

Why am I being held hostage to spending money I potentially don't need to? Why can't I insist or seek an order from the supreme court for a response considering?

Thanks in advance..

 

[Tim W]

What sort of response do you want?
The reliability of a document as an item of evidence is a matter for the court.

 

[Joe1]

Hi

I'd like their response to the points raised by the document examiner (who has appeared as an expert witness in many past cases).
Why shouldn't they be obliged to explain each discrepancy point raised by my expert witness after his examination of the deed?
Why does the court allow them to prolong and exhaust the defendant out in the potential knowledge they have no real case but wont admit it in the hope of negotiating a payout by posturing?
Isn't this a waste of time and money let alone unethical? This is a matter of law & justice not a game of strategy?

 

[Tim W]

I'd like their response to the points raised by the document examiner (who has appeared as an expert witness in many past cases).

Your existing lawyers appear to have given you good advice about that.

Why shouldn't they be obliged to explain each discrepancy point raised by my expert witness after his examination of the deed?

If you want to use it as evidence, then your expert will be able to give evidence at that time.

Why does the court allow them to prolong and exhaust the defendant out in the potential knowledge they have no real case but wont admit it in the hope of negotiating a payout by posturing?

If your lawyers think that an application to dismiss the matter is likely to succeed,
then it is open to them to make one.
You can ask them about that.

Isn't this a waste of time and money let alone unethical? This is a matter of law & justice not a game of strategy?

I do not accept the premise that it is a waste of time and money.