Porter v Le [2016] NSWSC 849

Porter v Le [2016] NSWSC 849

The defendant's proposal for one concurrent session of all experts was not viable because the number of experts would cause serious reporting and accommodation difficulties and would be inefficient and unreasonable compared with specialty-based sessions, while any need to recall witnesses could be managed by the trial judge. Associate Professor Havas' non-attendance at the causation conclave was explained and caused no identified prejudice, so the plaintiff was granted leave to tender his report and call him. The plaintiff was also permitted to adduce evidence from Associate Professor Havas about the likely symptoms, signs and treatment absent the Panafcort prescription, but not to add...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Proceedings / Procedural Ruling Before Trial on Concurrent Expert Evidence and Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Procedural directions made and plaintiff granted leave to adduce specified expert evidence from Associate Professor Havas, with liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['concurrent Expert Evidence' 'medical Expert Conclave' 'leave to Tender Expert Report' 'causation Evidence' 'symptoms and Signs Evidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'medical Negligence' 'expert Evidence'] ['concurrent Expert Evidence' 'medical Expert Conclave' 'leave to Tender Expert Report' 'causation Evidence' 'symptoms and Signs Evidence']

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

Medical Negligence Proceedings / Procedural Ruling Before Trial on Concurrent Expert Evidence and Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether expert evidence should be given in specialist groups or in one concurrent session of all experts.' 'Whether the plaintiff should have leave to tender the report of Associate Professor Havas and call him to give evidence on issues addressed in the joint causation conclave report despite his non-attendance at the conclave.' "Whether the plaintiff should have leave to adduce evidence from Associate Professor Havas on the plaintiff's symptoms and signs and treatment if he had not been prescribed Panafcort 25 mg twice daily for 5 days."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's proposal for one concurrent session of all experts was not viable because the number of experts would cause serious reporting and accommodation difficulties and would be inefficient and unreasonable compared with specialty-based sessions, while any need to recall witnesses could be managed by the trial judge. Associate Professor Havas' non-attendance at the causation conclave was explained and caused no identified prejudice, so the plaintiff was granted leave to tender his report and call him. The plaintiff was also permitted to adduce evidence from Associate Professor Havas about the likely symptoms, signs and treatment absent the Panafcort prescription, but not to add...

Court Disposition

Procedural directions made and plaintiff granted leave to adduce specified expert evidence from Associate Professor Havas, with liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['Direct that expert evidence at the hearing be given in concurrent session in the categories and groups indicated at [9] above.' 'Grant leave to the plaintiff to tender the report of Associate Professor Havas of 7 June 2016 as part of his expert opinion in relation to issues addressed in the 24 February 2015 joint...