Habelrih & Ors v Szirt & Ors [2004] NSWSC 54

Habelrih & Ors v Szirt & Ors [2004] NSWSC 54

The Court was satisfied that a joint conference of the identified experts could be useful in narrowing the many and complex medical issues for trial, particularly the issue whether the third plaintiff's PPHN was primary or secondary due to hypoxia. The Court was not prepared to determine the mediation application immediately because that application would be better considered after the parties had the advantage of the experts' joint report.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Appointment of a Joint Conference of Expert Witnesses and for Mediation
Outcome
The first defendant's application for a joint conference of expert witnesses was granted; the plaintiffs' motion concerning mediation was stood over.
Legal Topics
['joint Conference of Expert Witnesses' 'expert Evidence' 'mediation' 'medical Causation' 'persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'medical Negligence'] ['joint Conference of Expert Witnesses' 'expert Evidence' 'mediation' 'medical Causation' 'persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn']

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

Professional Negligence Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Appointment of a Joint Conference of Expert Witnesses and for Mediation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a joint conference of expert witnesses should be appointed pursuant to Pt 36 r 13CA of the Supreme Court Rules.' 'Whether an independent person should be appointed to chair the joint conference and whether legal representatives should attend.' "Whether the plaintiffs' application for mediation should be determined before the joint expert report is provided."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that a joint conference of the identified experts could be useful in narrowing the many and complex medical issues for trial, particularly the issue whether the third plaintiff's PPHN was primary or secondary due to hypoxia. The Court was not prepared to determine the mediation application immediately because that application would be better considered after the parties had the advantage of the experts' joint report.

Court Disposition

The first defendant's application for a joint conference of expert witnesses was granted; the plaintiffs' motion concerning mediation was stood over.

Orders

  • ['I order the appointment of a joint conference pursuant to Pt 36 r 13CA of the Supreme Court Rules to be attended by Professor Colditz, Dr Williams, Dr McPhee and Dr Evans.' 'I order that an independent person be appointed to act as chairperson at such conference.' 'The conference is to be held without the...