Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 5) [2020] FCA 621

Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 5) [2020] FCA 621

Because the applicant's mental health is central to his claim and damages, and the respondent's ability to adduce expert medical evidence is necessary for a fair trial, refusal to attend a psychiatric examination by a doctor reasonably nominated by the respondent renders a fair trial impossible. In such circumstances, the court's discretion is appropriately exercised in ordering a permanent stay of proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Haydyn Gary Hastwell; Respondent: Kott Gunning
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Permanent Stay Pending Trial
Outcome
Proceeding permanently stayed unless applicant agrees to examination within prescribed period; costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Medical Examination of Party, Personal Liberty in Litigation, Adducing Expert Evidence, Psychiatric Evidence in Claims, Disability Discrimination, Discovery and Evidentiary Rights
Practice and Procedure Employment Law Discrimination Law Stay of Proceedings Medical Examination of Party Personal Liberty in Litigation Adducing Expert Evidence Psychiatric Evidence in Claims +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haydyn Gary Hastwell

Applicant

Kott Gunning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Permanent Stay Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding should be permanently stayed due to the applicant's refusal to attend a psychiatric examination nominated by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the court has inherent or implied jurisdiction to order a permanent stay in the absence of specific statutory authority
  3. 3 Whether refusal to submit to an examination prevents a fair trial by denying the respondent the opportunity to adduce relevant expert medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's mental health is central to his claim and damages, and the respondent's ability to adduce expert medical evidence is necessary for a fair trial, refusal to attend a psychiatric examination by a doctor reasonably nominated by the respondent renders a fair trial impossible. In such circumstances, the court's discretion is appropriately exercised in ordering a permanent stay of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Proceeding permanently stayed unless applicant agrees to examination within prescribed period; costs to the respondent

Orders

  • On and from 8 June 2020 this paragraph takes effect so that the proceeding is permanently stayed.
  • If paragraph 1 takes effect the applicant must pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed if not agreed.