Prestwidge v Coldwell [2024] NSWSC 1279

Prestwidge v Coldwell [2024] NSWSC 1279

Further cross-examination of the plaintiff and Ms Martin was warranted given the number and timing of external regulatory complaints made during adjournment, the potential impact on credit, and the possibility of an ulterior motive, as well as the consistency of documentary disclosure principles with allowing the defendant to respond to those complaints. Release from the Harman undertaking and directions for further cross-examination were fair and appropriate in the circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jackson Prestwidge; Defendant: Jonathan Coldwell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Claim / Procedural Interlocutory Applications; Orders Following Partial Hearing and During Adjournment
Outcome
Procedural applications granted; proceeding settled prior to completion of hearing
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Leave to Recall Witness, Harman Undertaking, Document Disclosure, Medical Negligence
Civil Procedure Cross Examination Leave to Recall Witness Harman Undertaking Document Disclosure Medical Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Prestwidge

Plaintiff

Jonathan Coldwell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Claim / Procedural Interlocutory Applications; Orders Following Partial Hearing and During Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be released from the implied 'Harman' undertaking to disclose documents for the purpose of responding to regulatory complaints
  2. 2 Whether it is appropriate to permit further cross-examination of the plaintiff and Ms Martin regarding complaints made to regulatory bodies during pending proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Further cross-examination of the plaintiff and Ms Martin was warranted given the number and timing of external regulatory complaints made during adjournment, the potential impact on credit, and the possibility of an ulterior motive, as well as the consistency of documentary disclosure principles with allowing the defendant to respond to those complaints. Release from the Harman undertaking and directions for further cross-examination were fair and appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Procedural applications granted; proceeding settled prior to completion of hearing

Orders

  • That the Defendant be released from the implied 'Harman' undertaking in respect of the documents specified in paragraph 22 of the affidavit of Lauren Christina Biviano sworn 20 September 2024 so that it may respond to the plaintiff's complaints and the complaint of Holly Martin about the defendant to AHPRA, the HCCC...
  • Pursuant to sections 61(1), 61(2) and 62(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) directions be given that the plaintiff be required to give further evidence under cross-examination at the resumption of the hearing on 14 October 2024.