Crown and infrastructure giant Lendlease are suing the state government in a bid to protect "sight lines" to the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge from their developments at the southern end of Barangaroo.

But documents tendered in the NSW Supreme Court earlier this month showed that concessions already made by the state-run Barangaroo Delivery Authority meant only small sections of Crown's tower would be affected by developments proposed for neighbouring Central Barangaroo.

The company's own expert report showed the most recent plans for Central Barangaroo, prepared by the authority in September, would block views of the base of the Harbour Bridge only from level three to level seven of Crown's 71-storey development, or roughly 15 metres of the 275-metre tower.

Those levels include a proposed gym, a restaurant and executive offices.

The report, prepared for Crown by architectural modeller Grant Kolln, also showed that views to the north-west tip of the Opera House would be affected for only a fraction of Crown's hotel rooms on the southern side of the tower from floors seven to 24.

Hearings in the costly legal battle resumed last Wednesday, when Crown's barrister Neil Young, QC, said that the company would be relying on a new report prepared by Mr Kolln.

That report, tendered in court, showed Crown's lawyers had instructed Mr Kolln to use a different methodology to measure the "cumulative effect of the obstructions" on its views.

It was dated November 11, about one week after the earlier analysis for the companies was released by the court and published by the Herald.

The report showed the BDA's latest proposal for the site would hinder views of the Opera House and Harbour Bridge roughly from level three to level 15 of the tower, and from a small slice of rooms from level 16 to level 24.

The authority's barrister, Tony Bannon SC, asked Crown's vice president of design and construction, Lee Monfort, if he had been "worried about the appearance of the impact from that first report".

"Do you agree that you thought that didn't present a very good picture of the amount of impact on Crown, and then indicated there should be some different instructions given to Mr [Kolln] to produce a bigger impact?"

Mr Monfort replied the image in the first report had been incorrect as it was "taken from the wrong location on the bridge" and said the company had discussed the matter with its lawyers.

He understood the "sight lines" Crown wanted to retain included not only the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, but also across Central Barangaroo to Observatory Hill and nearby terrace houses.

Mr Monfort agreed with Mr Bannon's suggestion that the analysis in the most recent report showed "an apparently higher impact" than the first report.

In his evidence on Thursday, Mr Kolln said he was not aware of any errors in the initial reports he had prepared for the companies.

Justice Robert McDougall: "Or to put it another way the first report, in your professional opinion, was an accurate response to the instructions on which it was based?"

Mr Kolln: "Yes, your Honour."

Crown and Lendlease are arguing that clauses in their 2015 development contracts stipulated they should have been progressively consulted on the development plans for Central Barangaroo.

The companies argue the BDA had to negotiate in good faith with them about proposed departures from the plan for the precinct that guaranteed them uninterrupted harbour views.

But the BDA is arguing the relevant clauses in the contracts were focused on good faith negotiations, which balanced its desire to optimise development at the site, and did not guarantee those "sight lines" would be retained.

The views from Lendlease's development will be significantly more affected than Crown's casino, hotel and residential complex, which is due to be completed in 2021.

The case returns to court this week.