Fregnan v Stanizzo; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 648

Fregnan v Stanizzo; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 648

The psychiatrist's report was not admitted because the relevant opinions about Mr Stanizzo's conduct as a solicitor giving evidence did not fall within psychiatric expertise or, if they did, were based on an unestablished norm and not on empirically verifiable facts or assumptions; any current medical opinion was addressed by permitting short oral evidence that Dr Roberts maintained his earlier opinions. Counsel was released from the undertaking for the limited purpose sought because Mr Badarne knew the documents, there was no prejudice by surprise, and the material was relevant to whether Mr Badarne considered himself indebted to Mr Abu Ria under the Deed of Settlement, with timing...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Common Law Civil Proceedings / Procedural and Other Rulings on Tender of Psychiatrist's Report and Release From Undertaking
Outcome
Tender of psychiatrist's report rejected; plaintiff's counsel released from undertaking.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'late Service of Expert Report' 'psychiatric Evidence' 'subpoenaed Material' 'undertaking Not to Communicate Subpoena Material' 'consent Orders' 'freezing Order Application']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'late Service of Expert Report' 'psychiatric Evidence' 'subpoenaed Material' 'undertaking Not to Communicate Subpoena Material' 'consent Orders' 'freezing Order Application']

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

Common Law Civil Proceedings / Procedural and Other Rulings on Tender of Psychiatrist's Report and Release From Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Stanizzo should be permitted to tender Dr J A Roberts' psychiatrist's report dated 17 April 2019." "Whether opinions in the psychiatrist's report concerning Mr Stanizzo's behaviour when giving evidence fell within the psychiatrist's area of expertise and were based on established facts or assumptions." "Whether Mr Stanizzo's counsel should be released from an undertaking not to communicate material produced by the Local Court on subpoena so that it could be used in evidence in the present proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The psychiatrist's report was not admitted because the relevant opinions about Mr Stanizzo's conduct as a solicitor giving evidence did not fall within psychiatric expertise or, if they did, were based on an unestablished norm and not on empirically verifiable facts or assumptions; any current medical opinion was addressed by permitting short oral evidence that Dr Roberts maintained his earlier opinions. Counsel was released from the undertaking for the limited purpose sought because Mr Badarne knew the documents, there was no prejudice by surprise, and the material was relevant to whether Mr Badarne considered himself indebted to Mr Abu Ria under the Deed of Settlement, with timing...

Court Disposition

Tender of psychiatrist's report rejected; plaintiff's counsel released from undertaking.

Orders

  • ["Tender of psychiatrist's report rejected." "Plaintiff's counsel released from undertaking."]