Harrod v MetLife Insurance Limited [2019] NSWSC 28

Harrod v MetLife Insurance Limited [2019] NSWSC 28

The Court ordered the plaintiff to attend Professor Mattick's medical examination because her mental condition was directly in issue, the UCPR Part 23 requirements were satisfied, Dr Kneebone's report provided a sufficient change of circumstances and medical basis for further testing, the earlier consent orders did not create an estoppel or binding abandonment, the examination was for a legitimate purpose material to the issues, and the plaintiff's objections based on CRC process, delay, credibility, qualifications and potential mental harm did not justify refusing the discretionary order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Motion by Second Defendant for Medical Examination in TPD Insurance Proceedings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to attend a medical examination by Professor Mattick; directions made for the future conduct of the proceedings; plaintiff ordered to pay MetLife's costs of the motion subject to any motion for a special costs order.
Legal Topics
['medical Examination of Plaintiff' 'total and Permanent Disability Benefits' 'discretion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 23.4' 'case Management' 'utmost Good Faith']
['practice and Procedure' 'insurance' 'civil Procedure'] ['medical Examination of Plaintiff' 'total and Permanent Disability Benefits' 'discretion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 23.4' 'case Management' 'utmost Good Faith']

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

Motion by Second Defendant for Medical Examination in TPD Insurance Proceedings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be ordered under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 23.4 to attend a medical examination by Professor Mattick.' 'Whether earlier consent orders before Parker J or the resolution of earlier motions prevented MetLife from seeking the examination.' 'Whether the proposed examination was sought for a legitimate purpose material to issues in dispute, or impermissibly for a collateral credibility purpose.' "Whether delay, the CRC process, Professor Mattick's qualifications, or alleged risk to the plaintiff's mental state justified refusing the order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered the plaintiff to attend Professor Mattick's medical examination because her mental condition was directly in issue, the UCPR Part 23 requirements were satisfied, Dr Kneebone's report provided a sufficient change of circumstances and medical basis for further testing, the earlier consent orders did not create an estoppel or binding abandonment, the examination was for a legitimate purpose material to the issues, and the plaintiff's objections based on CRC process, delay, credibility, qualifications and potential mental harm did not justify refusing the discretionary order.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to attend a medical examination by Professor Mattick; directions made for the future conduct of the proceedings; plaintiff ordered to pay MetLife's costs of the motion subject to any motion for a special costs order.

Orders

  • ['Order the plaintiff to attend for a medical examination before Professor Mattick at a time to be arranged.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs of the second defendant's motion of 13 July 2018." 'Order 2 will be stayed if either party files a motion seeking a special costs order within seven...