Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1938

Donald v Rail Corporation of New South Wales (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1938

The concurrent medical evidence was admissible because the substance of Dr Bodel's oral evidence was already covered by his tendered reports and amounted to further explanation rather than a new issue requiring leave under r 31.28. The defendants were not unfairly disadvantaged, particularly because Dr Maxwell gave concurrent evidence and had the opportunity to comment on and respond to Dr Bodel's views.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Oral Expert Evidence / Trial; Voir Dire Concerning Concurrent Evidence of Medical Experts
Outcome
Concurrent evidence of the medical experts admitted as evidence in the trial.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Oral Expert Evidence' 'concurrent Expert Evidence' 'leave to Lead Additional Evidence in Chief' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 31.28']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Oral Expert Evidence' 'concurrent Expert Evidence' 'leave to Lead Additional Evidence in Chief' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 31.28']

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 on Admissibility of Oral Expert Evidence / Trial; Voir Dire Concerning Concurrent Evidence of Medical Experts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff required leave under r 31.28(3) and (4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to lead additional oral evidence in chief from Dr Bodel where the defendants did not require him for cross-examination.' 'Whether the concurrent evidence of Dr Bodel and Dr Maxwell should be admitted as evidence in the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The concurrent medical evidence was admissible because the substance of Dr Bodel's oral evidence was already covered by his tendered reports and amounted to further explanation rather than a new issue requiring leave under r 31.28. The defendants were not unfairly disadvantaged, particularly because Dr Maxwell gave concurrent evidence and had the opportunity to comment on and respond to Dr Bodel's views.

Court Disposition

Concurrent evidence of the medical experts admitted as evidence in the trial.

Orders

  • ['I rule that the concurrent evidence of the medical experts is admitted as evidence in the trial.']