Latimer v Day Jr [2014] NSWSC 1217

Latimer v Day Jr [2014] NSWSC 1217

The Defendant's Notice to Admit, at least as to the disputed facts before the Court, should not have been given because the matters could be easily proved at trial by documents, and the paragraphs seeking to link primary facts to employment-related injuries and damages raised questions better determined at the hearing on the full material. The proposed preliminary admissibility ruling would provide no significant benefit. The Plaintiff should receive a limited extension of time only for the specified disputed paragraphs, but not for matters now admitted or for the authenticity of documents. Because the Notice to Admit was overbroad and costly, and the Plaintiff was also fairly criticised...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings Alleging Negligence by a Neurosurgeon; Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning a Notice to Admit Facts and Authenticity of Documents, Extension of Time, Admissibility Ruling and Costs
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion dismissed; Plaintiff granted a limited extension of time to serve a notice disputing specified facts; each side ordered to pay its own costs of the notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['notice to Admit Facts' 'admissions' 'authenticity of Documents' 'extension of Time' 'admissibility Ruling' 'costs' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Real Issues']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'medical Negligence'] ['notice to Admit Facts' 'admissions' 'authenticity of Documents' 'extension of Time' 'admissibility Ruling' 'costs' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Real Issues']

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 Proceedings Alleging Negligence by a Neurosurgeon; Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning a Notice to Admit Facts and Authenticity of Documents, Extension of Time, Admissibility Ruling and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff should be required to make the admissions sought in the Defendant's Notice to Admit dated 4 June 2014." 'Whether a ruling or finding should be made under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) that the facts and documents in the Notice to Admit were admissible and might be adduced as admissions.' "Whether time should be extended for the Plaintiff to serve a Notice Disputing Facts in response to specified paragraphs of the Defendant's Notice to Admit." 'What costs order should be made on the notices of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Notice to Admit, at least as to the disputed facts before the Court, should not have been given because the matters could be easily proved at trial by documents, and the paragraphs seeking to link primary facts to employment-related injuries and damages raised questions better determined at the hearing on the full material. The proposed preliminary admissibility ruling would provide no significant benefit. The Plaintiff should receive a limited extension of time only for the specified disputed paragraphs, but not for matters now admitted or for the authenticity of documents. Because the Notice to Admit was overbroad and costly, and the Plaintiff was also fairly criticised...

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion dismissed; Plaintiff granted a limited extension of time to serve a notice disputing specified facts; each side ordered to pay its own costs of the notices of motion.

Orders

  • ["Defendant's notice of motion filed on 4 August 2014 be dismissed." "Extend time to serve a Notice Disputing the Facts the subject of paragraphs 15, 17, 18, 19-23, 29, 30 and 34 of the Defendant's Notice to Admit dated 4 June 2014 up to, and including, Friday, 5 September 2014." "No extension of time to permit the...