Guerin v Hillier; Netherwood v Hillier; Moore v Pell [2020] NSWSC 1322

Guerin v Hillier; Netherwood v Hillier; Moore v Pell [2020] NSWSC 1322

The court exercised its discretion to limit the number of expert orthopaedic witnesses the plaintiffs may rely on in instances where the reports were substantially duplicative, but allowed non-overlapping additional experts where appropriate. Reciprocal orders for defendants were made or required, and further occupational therapy assessment by defendant's therapist was permitted subject to reasonable precautions. No order as to costs, each to bear own costs, reflecting mixed success on the motions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Case Management; Determination of Notices of Motion Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory case management orders made: plaintiffs in Guerin v Hillier and Netherwood v Hillier limited to two specified expert witnesses each; further assessment by defendant's occupational therapist permitted in Moore v Pell; reciprocal orders for defendants to select a single expert where appropriate; no order...
Legal Topics
['limitation of Expert Evidence' 'interlocutory Orders' 'case Management' 'medical Negligence' 'directions Regarding Expert Witnesses']
['civil Procedure'] ['limitation of Expert Evidence' 'interlocutory Orders' 'case Management' 'medical Negligence' 'directions Regarding Expert Witnesses']

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

Interlocutory Application / Case Management; Determination of Notices of Motion Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to limit the number of expert witnesses each party may call in medical negligence proceedings' "Whether reciprocal limitation should apply to defendant's expert witnesses" 'Whether late application for further expert (occupational therapist) assessment should be permitted given COVID-19 concerns']

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to limit the number of expert orthopaedic witnesses the plaintiffs may rely on in instances where the reports were substantially duplicative, but allowed non-overlapping additional experts where appropriate. Reciprocal orders for defendants were made or required, and further occupational therapy assessment by defendant's therapist was permitted subject to reasonable precautions. No order as to costs, each to bear own costs, reflecting mixed success on the motions.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory case management orders made: plaintiffs in Guerin v Hillier and Netherwood v Hillier limited to two specified expert witnesses each; further assessment by defendant's occupational therapist permitted in Moore v Pell; reciprocal orders for defendants to select a single expert where appropriate; no order...

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff Guerin permitted to rely on reports of Dr Giblin and Dr Hopcroft but not Dr Johnstone.' 'Plaintiff Netherwood permitted to rely on reports of Dr Giblin and Dr Hopcroft; must not call Dr Johnstone or Dr Mehta.' 'Defendant Hillier in Netherwood v Hillier required to elect which of his neurosurgical or...