Najjarin v Goodman [2024] NSWDC 81

Najjarin v Goodman [2024] NSWDC 81

The notice of motion was dismissed because the Defendant did not provide specialist medical or other appropriate expert evidence showing that the proposed neuropsychological or psychometric testing would have the overriding purpose of assisting determination of the Plaintiff's physical or mental condition. The only identified support was a lawyer's statement that TOMM testing would assess credibility, which was outside the lawyer's specialist knowledge and not persuasive. Dr Synnott's reports did not support the utility of objective or scientific testing for psychiatric opinion and instead stated that psychiatric diagnosis rests on history and psychiatric assessment, not scientific tests.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion for Order That the Plaintiff Attend a Medico Legal Examination
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['medico Legal Examination' 'psychiatric Examination' 'psychometric Testing' 'credibility Testing' 'overriding Purpose' 'fair and Efficient Conduct of Litigation']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'motor Vehicle Accident Litigation' 'expert Evidence'] ['medico Legal Examination' 'psychiatric Examination' 'psychometric Testing' 'credibility Testing' 'overriding Purpose' 'fair and Efficient Conduct of Litigation']

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

Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion for Order That the Plaintiff Attend a Medico Legal Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendant should be granted an order under UCPR pt 23 r 4 requiring the Plaintiff to attend a medico-legal examination with a neuropsychologist.' "Whether the proposed psychometric testing had the overriding purpose of assisting determination of the Plaintiff's physical or mental condition, rather than the collateral purpose of testing credibility." 'Whether the Defendant provided sufficient medical or expert evidence to justify the proposed examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because the Defendant did not provide specialist medical or other appropriate expert evidence showing that the proposed neuropsychological or psychometric testing would have the overriding purpose of assisting determination of the Plaintiff's physical or mental condition. The only identified support was a lawyer's statement that TOMM testing would assess credibility, which was outside the lawyer's specialist knowledge and not persuasive. Dr Synnott's reports did not support the utility of objective or scientific testing for psychiatric opinion and instead stated that psychiatric diagnosis rests on history and psychiatric assessment, not scientific tests.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.']