Kelly v Thorn; Monteleone v Thorn (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1935

Kelly v Thorn; Monteleone v Thorn (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1935

Because the surveillance film had been admitted without objection, the whole of the film had been provided to those representing the plaintiff, and doctors had formed opinions without regard to the film, the defendants should be permitted to adduce further evidence from the doctors once they have seen the film, limited to the extent to which any film impacts upon matters raised in their original reports.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Application by Defendants for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence From Doctors and to Cross Examine Doctors About Surveillance Film During Cross Examination
Outcome
Leave granted to the defendants to adduce further evidence from the doctors, limited at this stage to the extent to which any film impacts upon matters raised in their original reports.
Legal Topics
['witness Evidence' 'expert Witnesses' 'surveillance Film' 'leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'cross Examination']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['witness Evidence' 'expert Witnesses' 'surveillance Film' 'leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'cross Examination']

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

Procedural Ruling / Application by Defendants for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence From Doctors and to Cross Examine Doctors About Surveillance Film During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be permitted to adduce further evidence from doctors retained for the case in relation to surveillance film shown to the plaintiff during cross-examination.' 'Whether the defendants should be permitted to cross-examine doctors retained by the plaintiff on the material in the surveillance film.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the surveillance film had been admitted without objection, the whole of the film had been provided to those representing the plaintiff, and doctors had formed opinions without regard to the film, the defendants should be permitted to adduce further evidence from the doctors once they have seen the film, limited to the extent to which any film impacts upon matters raised in their original reports.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the defendants to adduce further evidence from the doctors, limited at this stage to the extent to which any film impacts upon matters raised in their original reports.

Orders

  • ['The defendants are granted leave to adduce further evidence from the doctors, limited at this stage to the extent to which any film impacts upon matters raised in their original reports.']