Hunter New England LHD v Munters Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 428

Hunter New England LHD v Munters Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 428

Given the complexity of the issues, the amount claimed, and that the proposed expert is to be brought in as a medical mycologist in place of the previously authorised medical practitioner, the plaintiff should be permitted to serve a report from a medical mycologist, but there should be limits on the number of experts involved pursuant to the efficiency provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Parties
Plaintiff: Hunter New England LHD; Defendant: Munters Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made permitting medical mycologist evidence; timetable for affidavits and next directions set.
Legal Topics
Evidence — Expert Evidence, Remedial Work, Mycology and Medical Mycology, Efficiency Provisions
Procedure Negligence Evidence — Expert Evidence Remedial Work Mycology and Medical Mycology Efficiency Provisions

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hunter New England LHD

Plaintiff

Munters Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be entitled to rely upon the evidence from a third (medical) mycologist
  2. 2 Distinction between a mycologist and a medical mycologist for purposes of expert evidence
  3. 3 Application of the efficiency provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Given the complexity of the issues, the amount claimed, and that the proposed expert is to be brought in as a medical mycologist in place of the previously authorised medical practitioner, the plaintiff should be permitted to serve a report from a medical mycologist, but there should be limits on the number of experts involved pursuant to the efficiency provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made permitting medical mycologist evidence; timetable for affidavits and next directions set.

Orders

  • The plaintiff can serve a report from a medical mycologist.
  • The defendant is to file and serve any affidavit in support of its notice of motion filed 9 March 2017 by 17 March 2017.