Irfan v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWSC 68

Irfan v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWSC 68

Given the subtle distinction between the clinical roles of a neurologist and a neurointerventionist, the potential complexity of the medical negligence issues involving clot retrieval, and the specific relevance of Professor Yan’s expertise to the particulars of negligence pleaded, the principled considerations supporting restriction on multiple experts yield in this case to Mr Irfan’s need to rely on Professor Yan’s report. The concerns raised by the defendants regarding expense and delay are more apparent than real and do not outweigh the need for robust expert evidence on these technical matters.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Muhammad Irfan; Second Plaintiff: Salva Anwari; First Defendant: Western Sydney Local Health District; Second Defendant: Health Administration Corporation (Ambulance Service of NSW)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure – Negligence / Application for Leave to Rely on Further Expert Evidence
Outcome
Leave granted to rely on Professor Yan's expert report; time for service of plaintiffs’ liability expert evidence extended.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Medical Negligence, Multiplicity of Experts
Civil Procedure Negligence Expert Evidence Medical Negligence Multiplicity of Experts

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Irfan

First Plaintiff

Salva Anwari

Second Plaintiff

Western Sydney Local Health District

First Defendant

Health Administration Corporation (Ambulance Service of NSW)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure – Negligence / Application for Leave to Rely on Further Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiffs to rely on the additional expert report of Professor Yan
  2. 2 Whether engaging multiple experts in the same specialty/subspecialty is permissible in these proceedings
  3. 3 Concerns regarding disruption, expense, and delay if additional expert reports are admitted

Ratio Decidendi

Given the subtle distinction between the clinical roles of a neurologist and a neurointerventionist, the potential complexity of the medical negligence issues involving clot retrieval, and the specific relevance of Professor Yan’s expertise to the particulars of negligence pleaded, the principled considerations supporting restriction on multiple experts yield in this case to Mr Irfan’s need to rely on Professor Yan’s report. The concerns raised by the defendants regarding expense and delay are more apparent than real and do not outweigh the need for robust expert evidence on these technical matters.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to rely on Professor Yan's expert report; time for service of plaintiffs’ liability expert evidence extended.

Orders

  • Order 1A: Time for service of the plaintiffs' liability expert evidence against both defendants comprising the reports of Professor Bernard Yan (dated 22 March 2023) and Dr Ron Brooder (dated 2 and 31 March 2023) is extended to 28 August 2024.
  • Order 1B: The plaintiffs are given leave to rely on the expert reports of Professor Yan and Dr Brooder referred to above.