Bugden v The Congregation of Religious Sisters of Charity of Australia [2020] NSWSC 493

Bugden v The Congregation of Religious Sisters of Charity of Australia [2020] NSWSC 493

Because the cardiology and neurology experts relied upon each other's reports and addressed overlapping issues, it would be difficult and inefficient for the trial judge to deal with separate reports addressing overlapping issues. The experts could choose to answer questions falling within their specialties, so a single joint liability conclave was appropriate. Given oversights by both sides and the plaintiff's ultimate consent to leave for the report, there should be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Notice of Motion Concerning Expert Evidence and Expert Conclaves / Procedural Ruling Before Hearing of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave granted to the second defendant to rely on Associate Professor Mark Adams' report; single joint liability conclave of cardiology and neurology experts directed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['conference Between Expert Witnesses' 'leave to Rely on Expert Report' 'single or Separate Expert Conclaves' 'costs of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'expert Evidence' 'medical Negligence'] ['conference Between Expert Witnesses' 'leave to Rely on Expert Report' 'single or Separate Expert Conclaves' 'costs of Motion']

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 Procedure Notice of Motion Concerning Expert Evidence and Expert Conclaves / Procedural Ruling Before Hearing of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the second defendant pursuant to UCPR 31.28 to rely on the report of Associate Professor Mark Adams dated 30 October 2018.' 'Whether the Court should direct a single joint liability conclave of cardiology and neurology experts or separate conclaves split by expertise under UCPR 31.24.' 'What order should be made as to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the cardiology and neurology experts relied upon each other's reports and addressed overlapping issues, it would be difficult and inefficient for the trial judge to deal with separate reports addressing overlapping issues. The experts could choose to answer questions falling within their specialties, so a single joint liability conclave was appropriate. Given oversights by both sides and the plaintiff's ultimate consent to leave for the report, there should be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the second defendant to rely on Associate Professor Mark Adams' report; single joint liability conclave of cardiology and neurology experts directed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the second defendant pursuant to UCPR 31.28 to rely on the report of Associate Professor Mark Adams dated 30 October 2018.' "Pursuant to UCPR 31.24, the Court directs that there be a single joint liability conclave of cardiology and neurology experts at the hearing of the plaintiff's statement...