Stambolziovski v Nestrovic  NSWDC 291, a decision from last year, deals in part with obligations for disclosure of supplementary expert reports such as under UCPR 31.34 (NSW).
The first report of a psychologist attributed to the claimant’s anxiety and depression to an incident which gave rise to the claim. The supplementary report suggested that the claimant had attempted to deceive the author of the report.
The claimant at  argued that the second report of the psychologist was not a supplementary report; perhaps not an easy argument as the report bore that heading.
As for the obligation under the rules, the claimant argued at  –  that a further report would only be a supplementary report if it indicated a change of opinion or because any difference of opinion was not attributable to further facts being established.
The court held that the obligation to disclose under the rule did not require that there be a change of opinion nor that there be new facts established: see  – .