Spasovic & Anor v Sydney Adventist Hospital & Anor [2002] NSWSC 164

Spasovic & Anor v Sydney Adventist Hospital & Anor [2002] NSWSC 164

The expert medical opinions were markedly divergent, had remained so after consideration of contrary opinions, and the proposed questions depended on disputed factual assumptions about the first plaintiff's hospital presentation, symptoms and complaints that could only be determined at trial. Because the experts would need to proceed on alternative assumed histories and significant underlying differences in medical opinion would remain, the Court was not satisfied that there was a reasonable expectation that the proposed conference would result in agreement on any issue or otherwise meet the possible utility test. The conference was therefore not ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Claim / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for an Order Pursuant to Pt 36 R 13 CA of the Supreme Court Rules for a Conference of Medical Experts and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conference Between Experts' 'expert Evidence' 'case Management' 'causation in Medical Negligence']
['practice and Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'medical Negligence'] ['conference Between Experts' 'expert Evidence' 'case Management' 'causation in Medical Negligence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Claim / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for an Order Pursuant to Pt 36 R 13 CA of the Supreme Court Rules for a Conference of Medical Experts and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should order a conference of medical experts under Pt 36 r 13CA of the Supreme Court Rules despite opposition by the plaintiffs.' 'Whether there was a reasonable expectation that a conference between experts would achieve one or more of the objectives in Practice Note 121, such as narrowing issues, shortening trial, enhancing settlement prospects, or reducing expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The expert medical opinions were markedly divergent, had remained so after consideration of contrary opinions, and the proposed questions depended on disputed factual assumptions about the first plaintiff's hospital presentation, symptoms and complaints that could only be determined at trial. Because the experts would need to proceed on alternative assumed histories and significant underlying differences in medical opinion would remain, the Court was not satisfied that there was a reasonable expectation that the proposed conference would result in agreement on any issue or otherwise meet the possible utility test. The conference was therefore not ordered.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' "The second defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs on the motion."]